While setting aside an order denying disclosure of the videography of the Band Skill Test for recruitment of Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that 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.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby the request of the petitioner for supply of videography of the Band Skill Test conducted during the recruitment process for the post of Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police was declined.

The Single Bench of 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.”

“In the present case, the respondents have sought to justify the denial of information only on the ground that the videography relates to other applicants and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, 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”, it added.

Advocate Animesh Sharma represented the Petitioner while Senior DAG Saumya Ahluwalia represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, who belongs to the Backwards Class-B (BCB) category, applied for the post pursuant to advertisement issued by the second respondent. The selection process, as prescribed under the advertisement, comprised a Knowledge Test carrying 20 marks, a qualifying Physical Screening Test, a Band Skill Test carrying 60 marks and other prescribed procedures under the relevant service rules. The final list of candidates recommended by the Selection Board for enrolment as Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police merely reflected the names of the selected candidates without disclosing the detailed breakup of marks. Upon perusal thereof, he came to know that one Jaibir had been selected against the sole advertised post in the BCB category in the Brass Band.

Questioning the selection, the petitioner filed a petition. During the pendency of the said petition, the State filed a reply through the Additional Director General of Police, Karnal Range, Karnal, placing on record the final selection list along with the detailed breakup of marks obtained by the selected candidates. The comparative marks of the petitioner and the selected candidate were thus disclosed.The petitioner claimed disclosure of the videography of the Band Skill Test, contending that the same was the contemporaneous record of the assessment and would enable him to examine the fairness of the evaluation, particularly when the said test carried 60 marks out of the total 100 marks.

The petitioner had earlier submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking information relating to candidates belonging to the BCB category, including their answer sheets, marks obtained and videography of the Band Skill Test. The SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnal, declined the information on the ground that it pertained to other applicants and was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was also decided on the same grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission, Haryana, by way of a second appeal. The petition came to be filed before the High Court after the Commission observed that in the absence of prima facie wrongdoing or demonstrable harm to public interest, disclosure could not be directed.

Reasoning

Referring to various decisions, the Bench observed that the 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.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the recording sought by the petitioner pertained to the performance of candidates in the said test and constituted the contemporaneous record of the assessment undertaken by the Selection Board. “Thus, 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”, it added.

The Bench held, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the denial of the videography of the Band Skill Test cannot be sustained. The impugned order, to the extent it declines disclosure of the said information, therefore, warrants interference.”

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied disclosure of the videography of the Band Skill Test. “The authorities are directed to furnish the requisite information to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Sunder Lal v. State of Haryana and Others (Case No.: CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Animesh Sharma, Ishita Khanna

Respondent: Senior DAG Saumya Ahluwalia

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: