Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order of the Haryana State Information Commission that refused to give an unsuccessful candidate the videography of the Band Skill Test in a Haryana Police recruitment.

The Commission had refused on the ground that the candidate had not shown prima facie malice or subversion of the assessment.

Justice Kirti Singh held,

“The right to seek information cannot be made dependent upon the information seeker first establishing the very irregularity which the information is sought to examine. Such a requirement would defeat the purpose of seeking access to the relevant record. Where the information sought directly relates to the assessment of candidates in a public recruitment process, the requirement of transparency and accountability assumes significance.”

The petitioner, a Backward Class-B (BC-B) candidate, applied for the post of Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police under an advertisement dated 30.11.2022. The selection was out of 100 marks, The Band Skill Test was itself split into three parts: scales and instrument (25), self-choice music (25) and sight reading (10). It was conducted under videography.

The final list published in February 2024 gave only the names of the selected candidates. The single BC-B post in the Brass Band went to another candidate.

The petitioner then filed a writ petition, in which the State disclosed the marks. Both candidates had scored 13.6 in the Knowledge Test, but they differed sharply in the Band Skill Test. He withdrew that petition with liberty to pursue his remedies.

He had earlier filed an RTI application seeking the answer sheets, marks and Band Skill Test videography of the BC-B candidates. The application went through the following stages:

The State Public Information Officer (SPIO) refused it under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the ground that it concerned other applicants. The first appellate authority upheld that refusal.

In second appeal, the State Information Commission directed release of the marks, but declined the videography because “no material had been placed on record to establish malice or prima facie subversion of the assessment process.”

The petitioner argued that the videography was the contemporaneous record of a public recruitment examination conducted by a State authority, not private material. The State argued that the process was properly conducted and that the selected candidate scored higher on merit. It also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for the Bass Drum and the selected candidate for the Bb Clarinet, and maintained that the recording was exempt under Section 8(1)(j).

The Court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in UPSC v. N. Sugathan (2011), which held that a candidate overlooked for a public post “is entitled to know the reasons which prevailed with the appointing/recommending authority for preferring another over him.” It also relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh, which held that conducting and evaluating a departmental examination is a public activity. 

Justice Kirti said,

“The principle emerging therefrom is that information having a direct nexus with a public recruitment process cannot be denied merely by labelling it as personal information, without examining the nature of the information sought and the applicability of the statutory exemption.”

The Court noted that the Band Skill Test carried 60 of the 100 marks, and that “the difference in the overall merit is substantially attributable to the marks awarded in the Band Skill Test, the very assessment whose recording is sought by the petitioner.”

On the difference in instruments, the Court said this “does not, by itself, answer the question” of whether the recording is exempt. It added,

“The present proceedings are not concerned with determining the comparative musical proficiency of the two candidates or the correctness of the marks awarded to them. The limited issue is whether the petitioner can be denied access to the contemporaneous record of a test conducted as part of a public recruitment process.”

On the Section 8(1)(j) exemption, the Court held,

“the recording is not an unrelated personal document but forms part of the record of the assessment conducted by a public authority for recruitment to public posts. The mere fact that the recording also contains the performance of other candidates would not, by itself, justify withholding the entire information from an unsuccessful candidate who had participated in the same recruitment process and seeks access to the record having a direct bearing on the selection.”

In the light of the above, the petition was allowed. The Commission's order dated 22.01.2026 was set aside to the extent that it denied the videography, and the authorities were directed to provide the information to the petitioner within 30 days.

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Ishita Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Tags: