Siddharth Rajkonwar v. Union Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary

$~2.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2227/2016 SIDDHARTH RAJKONWAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Bhupender Pratap Singh, Advocate. versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ..... Respondent Through Ms. Megha Singh & Mr. Anurag, Advocates for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for UPSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R

% 18.03.2016 CM No. 9613/2016 Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No. 2227/2016 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 8th December, 2015 dismissing OA No. 4380/2015.

2.

The petitioner does not dispute that he did not qualify in the Indian Language Paper as per the results declared in July, 2014 for the Civil Services Examination for the year 2014. In these circumstances, the respondents had not declared result for Essay, General Studies and Optional Subjects in terms of Note-II dated 31st May, 2014. The said note reads as

under:- "Evaluation of the papers, namely, Essay, General Studies and Optional Subject of all candidates would be done simultaneously along with evaluation of their qualifying papers on Indian Languages and English but the papers on Essay, General Studies and Optional Subjects of only such candidates will be taken cognizance who attain 30% marks in Indian Language and 25% marks in English as minimum qualifying standards in these qualifying papers." 3.

The petitioner claims that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and as per decisions of this Court, he is entitled to know his scores in Essay, General Studies and Optional Subjects. The tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly observed that in case the petitioner wants to invoke provisions of Right to Information Act, then he is to follow the procedure prescribed in the said Act. The Right to Information Act under Section 8 provides for exemptions. The petitioner, if he so desires, may follow the procedure prescribed under the Right to Information Act. As far as the impugned order passed in the OA is concerned, it does not require any interference. The writ petition is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

MARCH 18, 2016 VKR