2025:UHC:8386 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1555/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Hitesh Chandra Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent. 2. Petitioner participated in a selection for the post of Additional Private Secretary, held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The selection process consists of (1) Hindi/English type test, (2) Computer knowledge examination and (3) Shorthand test. 3. Petitioner was declared unsuccessful in computer knowledge examination, therefore he was denied permission to appear in the next stage of selection. Petitioner has challenged the notification dated 02.08.2025, issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission whereby the list of candidates declared successful in the computer knowledge examination, is published. 4. Petitioner made request under Right to Information Act to disclose the marks obtained by him in computer knowledge examination. His request has been turned down by the Commission vide communication dated 06.08.2025. 2025:UHC:8386 5. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court; however, he has not challenged the communication, whereby his request for disclosure of marks was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Commission has relied upon the provisions of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules-2013. He refers to rule 45 and 71(7) of the Rules, which are extracted below: “45. The marks of all the candidates (After final results are declared) shall be displayed on the Commission’s website. 71(7) After the selection process of an examination is over, if a candidate(s) under the RTI Act-2005 demands photostat copy/copies of his/her Answer Book/OMR Answer Sheets or wants to see them, the procedure formed by the Commission for this purpose will be followed.” 7. By referring to the aforesaid provisions of the Rules, learned counsel for the Commission submits that since selection process is still on therefore, disclosure of marks to one candidate would disrupt selection process and it would then be difficult for the Commission to complete the process. 8. He submits that once selection process is over, not only the marks shall be displayed in the website, but if a candidate so desires, copy of the answer scripts can also be supplied to a candidate. 2025:UHC:8386 9. This Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 10. As selecting body, Public Service Commission has to maintain complete secrecy on certain aspects till the selection process is over. Disclosure of marks to one candidate may interfere with the purity of selection, especially when the next stage of selection is yet to be completed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 has observed that safeguards inbuilt in RTI Act ensures that revelation of information thereunder should not be in conflict with other public interests which include presentation of confidential and sensitive information. Similar view was expressed in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and others (2011) 8 SCC 781. 11. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.09.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a1 8b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1B C9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.24 10:46:50 +05'30'