[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:8319)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3672 of 2008
----
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.S.-
Lalpur, District- Ranchi, through its Public Information Officer, Sri
Sanjeet Samrendra Lakra, son of Sri Lal Mani Lakra, resident of
Road No.1, Kumhar Toli, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi
.... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jharkhand State Information Commission through its under
Secretary, Engineering Hostel No.1, H.E.C. Campus, Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
3. Anjani Kumar Choudhary, Advocate, S/o not known to the
petitioner, resident of 4C, Gayatri Apartment, Tagor Hill Road,
Morabadi, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi. .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate
Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. S. Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C. to G.A.-V
For the Res. No.2 :- Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate
For the Res. No.3 :- Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
----
18/24.03.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the State, learned counsel of the respondent No.2 as well as
learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. This application has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.6.2008
passed in Appeal No. 287 of 2008 by the learned Chief Information
Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, as contained
in Annexure-9, whereby the learned Chief Information Commissioner
has been pleased to direct the petitioner to provide the informations to
the respondent no.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Jharkhand
Public Service Commission, Ranchi is a constitutional body created
under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. He next submits that the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi after receiving
requisition from the Ranchi University, Ranchi, Vinoba Bhave
University, Hazaribagh and S.K.M. University, Dumka, started selection
process for the appointment of Lecturers and accordingly
Advertisement No. 1/07 was issued, by which, applications were
invited from the eligible candidates for consideration of their
candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturers. After following
the procedure and the interview of Lecturers, the J.P.S.C.
recommended the names of the successful candidates on 14.1.2008
for appointment on the post of Lecturers on the basis of assessment
made by the High Power Interview Board and on the basis of the
educational qualifications. He next submits that the said
recommendation made by the J.P.S.C. for appointment of Lecturers in
different Universities was challenged before this Hon'ble Court by
Jharkhand Ph.D. Dharak Sodh Sangh and another, in W. P. (C) No.
270/2008, which was heard on 23.01.2008 and interim order of stay
was passed by the High Court, which was subsequently vacated by the
order dated 27.02.2008.
4. He next submits that the respondent no.3 filed application
before the Public Information Officer, J.P.S.C. on 17.1.2008, by which,
he sought eight informations relating to appointment of Lecturers
alongwith proceedings of J.P.S.C. in which decisions have been taken
for making recommendation for appointment of lecturers, as well as,
signed copy of marks-sheet, signed by Members of the High Power
Interview Board who conducted the interview and awarded the marks
individually. In light of the pendency of the writ petition the
respondent no.3 was informed by the J.P.S.C. that the said information
cannot be provided. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 filed First Appeal
before the First Appellate authority on 25.02.2008 and filed Second
Appeal before the State Information Commission, which was
registered as Appeal No.287 of 2008 and in second appeal summon
was issued to the petitioner for its appearance, in which the petitioner
appeared and filed the objection pointing out that the information no.1
to 3 was provided to the respondent no.3.
5. He further submits that learned Information Commission has
heard the matter on 10.06.2008 and adjourned the same on
23.06.2008 for furnishing the information. He next submits that on
23.01.2008, the Public Information Officer has filed its written
statement pointing out that the information sought with regard to the
recommendation of candidates for appointment on the post of
Lecturers in different universities of this State as well as marks
awarded by each members of High Power Interview Board cannot be
provided in view of the confidentiality of the selection process and
public interest does not demand disclosure of methods used by the
Public Service Commission and same is protected from disclosure.
6. He also submits that the learned Information Commission has
further adjourned the matter for 26.06.2008 as such, the further
petition has been filed informing about the order of the High Court
and the stay. He submits by the impugned order dated 26.06.2008,
the learned Chief Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to
furnish the information no.4 to 8 to the respondent no.3. He next
submits that so far information no.1 to 3 are concerned that has
already been provided to the respondent no.3. He submits that the so
far, the information no.4 to 8 are concerned that relates to other
persons and in the light of Section 8(1)(e) and (g) of the Right
Information Act, it has not been provided. He also submits that in this
background the impugned order has been wrongly passed by the
learned Information Commission. He next submits that the said
examination was the subject matter of investigation by Central Bureau
of Investigation, in which the investigation has been made by the
C.B.I. and now the chargesheet has been submitted against the erring
persons.
7. He relied in the case of Union Public Service Commission
& Ors. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. reported in 2018(4) SCC 530,
and refers to paras-9,10 and 11, which reads as under:-
"9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the
one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and
confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view
that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam
cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of
other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw
marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above
which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out
where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of
information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact
situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice
can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without
considering these parameters.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the
writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will
not debar the respondents from making out a case on the above
parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.
11. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Civil Appeal No. 5924 of
2013."
8. Relying the above judgment, he submits that parameters of
providing information have been considered therein, if he emphasized
that exemptions as provided under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the Act
reinforced the imperative to protect the integrity and confidentiality of
examination process, against indiscriminate information disclosure. On
these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be
quashed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-
Information Commission submits that the said commission is having
the power and found that information was necessary in view of that
has passed the said order, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 submits
that the only information no.1 to 3 have been provided, however,
information no.4 to 8 have not been provided in view of that the
Information Commission has rightly passed the order.
11. In the aforesaid background, it transpires that the said
examination was the subject matter of the investigation by none other
than Central Bureau of Investigation. In view of the chargesheet filed
by C.B.I., the materials are in the public domain now.
12. It is an admitted position so far as the Information no.4 to 8
are concerned these were not related to the respondent no.3 that are
related to 3rd party information or lack the vitality of being seen upon
the public interest.
13. Under the Right to Information Act, the information can be
provided except that information which needed to be protected for
maintaining the confidentiality of the recruitment process by the Public
Service Commission. In this background, if the 3rd party information as
requested by the respondent no.3 was not provided, action of the
J.P.S.C. is not vitiated.
14. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (Supra), and further
considering that 3rd party information was sought by the respondent
no.3, the Information Commission in that view of the matter was not
justified to direct the J.P.S.C. to provide the such information. Further,
in light of the chargesheet filed by the C.B.I., the materials are now
within the public Domain.
15. In view of the above facts, reason and analysis the impugned
order dated 26.06.2008 passed in Appeal No.287 of 2008 is hereby
quashed.
16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in above terms and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated 24.03.26
Jay/
