- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6654 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR M N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. B. GANGADHAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE MAJOR IN AGE NO.187/13, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH 'C' MAIN ROAD, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 040. 2. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION NO.336, 2ND GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. OMKAR K.B.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. SHARATH GOWDA., G.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 03.02.2020, 11.02.2020 12.02.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 KARANATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION VIDE ANNEXURE-F, G, H AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID CASE FILED BY THE R-1. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner-Karnataka State Public Service Commission- is before this Court seeking following relief; "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 03.02.2020, 11.02.2020 and 12.02.2020 in Case No. KIC 2369 APL 2019 passed by the respondent No.2- Karnataka Information Commission vide Annexure-F, G & H and consequently dismiss the said case No.KIC 2369 APL 2019 filed by the respondent No.1." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the present petition necessitated in view of the impugned orders produced at Annexures-F, G and H passed by respondent No.2 in and by which certain directions have been issued which run contrary to the very provisions of law and the same are without jurisdiction. He submits that respondent No.1 herein had filed an application seeking information in the nature of "Particulars relating to the Registration number, Score, Paper, Marks and result of Registration No.26782 (2011- 2nd Session Departmental Examination)" from the Information - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 Officer of the petitioner. In response to said application, an endorsement dated 31.12.2018 came to be issued stating that the information with regard to the Application No.4428/2018 pending on the file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal could not be furnished as the same application has not been finally determined. As such, the respondent No.1 was called upon to make fresh application upon disposal of the said proceedings. Another endorsement dated 31.12.2018 was issued stating that since the respondent No.1 is working in the post of stenographer and no results have been announced in respect of the examination conducted with respect to Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) results were not announced. 3. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.02.2019. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 had preferred second appeal before the respondent No.2, in which respondent No.2 has passed the orders dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure-F), 11.02.2020 (Annexure- G), 12.02.2020 (Annexure H) respectively. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 4. By order dated 03.02.2020 produced at Annexure- F, the respondent No.2 has called upon the Information Officer of the petitioner to; (a) show cause as to why proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') shall not be initiated by imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-; and (b) to furnish the Answer Script and the certified copies of Marks within 7 days. 5. By virtue of Annexures-G and H the respondent No.2 has directed the Information Officer of the petitioner to; (a) retain the Answer Scripts of the examination conducted, for a period of 1 year instead of 6 months; and to (b) appoint one Smt.Divyaprabhu, Controller of Examinations as Public Information Officer and has further reiterated its earlier order to respond to show cause notice issued under Section 20(1) of RTI Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid directions issued by the respondent No.2 being without authority of law requires to be quashed. He submits that there has been substantial compliance made by the Information Officer of petitioner by furnishing the certified - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 marks of the respondent No.1 and the notification with regard to announcement of his result, and also copy of the postal dispatch register. Thus, he submits that since there is substantial compliance, respondent/authorities cannot pass the directions as sought to be done in the impugned orders. 7. As regards direction to retain the Answer Script for 1 year instead of 6 months, counsel for the petitioner submits that the answer scripts are expected to be retained by the Commission only for a period of 6 months after announcement of the results in terms of Annexure-15B(3) of the handbook. That there is no statutory requirement on the part of the petitioner to retain the answer script beyond the said period. In support of the said submission he filed a memo dated 05.01.2026 furnishing the Official Memorandum dated 16.12.2016 issued by the petitioner. 8. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, taking this Court through the provisions of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2005, more particularly, Section 19(8)(a)(ii) and 25(5) of the RTI Act submits that the directions/orders impugned in this petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 have been issued in furtherance to and in exercise of the power conferred on the respondent No.2 in the aforesaid provisions of law. Therefore, he submits that no illegality or irregularity can be found. 9. Heard. Perused the records. 10. Since the petitioner is aggrieved only to the extent of directions issued by respondent No.2 at paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 16 of Annexure-H which are verbatim repetition of Order at Annexure-G, the same are extracted hereunder: "13. ಆದಂದ ಇನು ಮುಂೆ ಅಭಗಳ ಉತರ ಪೆಗಳನು ಕಷ ಪ 1 ವಷಗಳ ಾಲ ಸಂರ%ಸ&ೇೆಂದು (ಾಗೂ ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸೂಕ-ಾದ ಸು.ೋ/ೆಯನು 1 ಂಗ12ೊಳ3ೆ (ೊರ45, ಎ/ಾ7 89ಾಗಗಳ ಮುಖಸ;ರ ಗಮನೆ< ತರ&ೇೆಂದು ಮತು ಮುಂ=ನ 8>ಾರ?ೆ =ನದಂದು ಆ@ೕಗೆ< ಸA7ಸ&ೇೆಂದು ಆ@ೕಗವB ಪ-ಾ=Cಾದ Dೕಮ ಸತವ, ಾಯದD, ಕ2ಾಟಕ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ ಆ@ೕಗ, &ೆಂಗಳGರು ರವ3ೆ HಾI ಹಕು< ಾK 2005ರ ಕಲಂ 25(5)ರನLಯ ೇD5ೆ. 14. ಅQಾರರು ತಮR ಅQಯA7 ೋರುವಂತಹ HಾI3ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟSಂ.ೆ ಇA7ಯವTೆ8ಗೂ ಸೂಕ-ಾದ HಾIಯನು ೕ4ಲ7=ರುವBದನು ಆ@ೕಗವB ಗಮ5ೆ. (ಾ3ಾU ಅQಾರ3ೆ HಾI ೕಡುವA7 8ಳಂಬ HಾಡುರುವBದಂದ ಈ ಪಕರಣದ Fಾಂದ.ೆ (ಾಗೂ ಮಹತL=ಂಾU ಇೊಂದು 8Xೇಷ ಪಕರಣ-ೆಂದು ಪಗY5, ಅQಾರರು HಾI ೋ ಸA75ರುವ ಅQಗ13ೆ ತLತ-ಾU HಾI ೕ4 HಾI ಹಕು< ಾKಯನು ಯಶ5LCಾU ಅನು[ಾನ3ೊ1ಸುವ (ಾಗೂ ಈ ಅ\ಯಮದ ಆಶಯ ಮತು ಉೇಶಗಳನು ]ಾ3ೊ1ಸುವ ಉೇಶ=ಂದ, ^ಾ\ಾರದ ಮುಖಸ;Tಾದ Dೕಮ =ವಪಭು, ಪೕ_ಾ ಯಂತಕರು, ಕ2ಾಟಕ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ ಆ@ೕಗ, ^ಾ` (ೌb, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 &ೆಂಗಳGರು ರವರನು HಾI ಹಕು< ಾK 2005 ರ ಕಲಂ 19(8)(ಎ)(ii)ರನLಯ Fಾವಜಕ HಾI ಅ\ಾಯ2ಾ U 2ೇdಸ/ಾUೆ. 16. ಆ@ೕಗವB =2ಾಂಕ: 03.02.2020 ರ ಆೇಶದA7ನ ಕಂ4ೆ 9 ರA7 ೇD5ದಂ.ೆ ಪ-ಾ=Cಾದ Iಂ=ನ Fಾವಜಕ HಾI ಅ\ಾಯವರು ಾರಣ ೇ1 2ೋeb3ೆ ಸೂಕ-ಾದ Afತ ಸಮ]ಾghಯನು ೕ4ಲ7=ರುವBದನು ಆ@ೕಗವB ಗಮ5ೆ. ºÁUÁV ಮುಂ=ನ 8>ಾರ?ೆ =ನದಂದು HಾI ಹಕು< ಾK 2005ರ ಕಲಂ 18(3)(ಎ)ರನLಯ ಖುದು (ಾಜTಾU HಾI ಹಕು< ಾK 2005ರ ಕಲಂ 20(1)ರನLಯ ಖುದು (ಾಜTಾU ಗಷ iತದ ದಂಡ 8\ಸುವ ಬ3ೆj ಾರಣ ೇ1 2ೋeb3ೆ Afತ ಸಮ]ಾghಯನು ೕಡ&ೇೆಂದು ಆ@ೕಗವB Dೕಮ ಆk.Tಾ]ೇಶL, Iಂ=ನ Fಾವಜಕ HಾI ಅ\ಾ (ಾಗೂ ಸ(ಾಯಕ ಾಯದDಗಳl (ಇ/ಾmಾ ಪೕ_ೆ), ಕ2ಾಟಕ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ ಆ@ೕಗ, ಉೋಗFೌಧ, &ೆಂಗಳGರು ರವ3ೆ ಮ.ೊnR ೇD5ೆ". 11. At paragraph 13 of the impugned order as extracted herein above, respondent No.2 has, directed the Information Officer of the petitioner to preserve the answer script at least for a period of 1 year and to issue a Circular in this regard within 1 month. 12. Official Memorandum dated 16.12.2016 issued by the petitioner reads as under; ಕ2ಾ ಕ2ಾ ಕ2ಾ ಕ2ಾಟಕ ಟಕ ಟಕ ಟಕ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ ಆ@ೕಗ ಆ@ೕಗ ಆ@ೕಗ ಆ@ೕಗ ¸ÀASÉå:DqÀ½vÀ (2)325/2016-17/¦J¸ï /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ ಆ@ೕಗದ ಕoೇ, ಉೋಗ Fೌಧ ". &ೆಂಗಳGರು, =2ಾಂಕ 6-12-2016. ಅ\ಕೃತ ಅ\ಕೃತ ಅ\ಕೃತ ಅ\ಕೃತ qಾಪನ qಾಪನ qಾಪನ qಾಪನ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 G¯ÉèÃR : DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ಅ\ಕೃತ qಾಪನ ¸ÀASÉå: Adm:1081/1973-74/PSC, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04-01-1974. ಉ/ೆ7ೕfತ =2ಾಂಕ: 04-01-1974ರ ಅ\ಕೃತ qಾಪನವನು ಮುಂದುವTೆಸು.ಾ, ಆ@ೕಗವB 88ಧ ಹುೆಗಳ 2ೇಮಾ3ಾU ನrೆಸುವ ಸstಾತRಕ ಪೕ_ೆಗಳ (ಾಗೂ ಇ/ಾmಾ ಪೕ_ೆಗಳ ಸಂಬಂಧದ ಪೕ_ಾ ಾಖ/ೆಗಳನು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂ.ೆ 8/ೇ Hಾಡಲು ಸೂu5ೆ. 1) 2ಾCಾಲಯೆ< (ಾಜರುಪ4ಸುವ ಅವಶಕ.ೆgಲ7ದ ಉತರ ಪೆ (ಾಗೂ ಓಎಂಆk ಉತರ (ಾwೆಗಳನು (ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂ\5ದ ಪೕ_ಾ ಾಖ/ೆಗಳನು ಸದ ಹುೆಯ ಅಂಮ ಆK<ಪeS ಪಕಟ-ಾದ =2ಾಂಕ=ಂದ ಆರು ಂಗಳ ಅವ\ ಪxಣ-ಾದ ನಂತರ-ೇ 8/ೇ Hಾಡತಕ<ದು 2) ಇ/ಾmಾ ಪೕ_ೆಗಳ ಉತರ ಪೆಗಳನು / ಓಎಂಆk ಉತರ (ಾwೆಗಳನು ಫA.ಾಂಶ: ಪಕಟ?ೆCಾದ 06 ಂಗಳ ತರು-ಾಯ 2ಾCಾಲಯೆ< (ಾಜರುಪ4ಸ&ೇzರುವ ಉತರ ಪೆಗಳನು (ೊರತುಪ45, ಉ1ದ ಉತರ ಪೆಗಳl ಮತು ಓಎಂಆk (ಾwೆಗಳl (ಾಗೂ ಮತರ ಪೕ_ಾ ಾಖ/ೆಗಳನು 8/ೇ Hಾಡ&ೇಕು. 3) 88ಧ ಪೕ_ೆಗಳ ಸಂಬಂಧದ ಪೕ_ಾ, ಯಂತಕರು ವವಹ5ದ ಪತ, ಹಸಪ, ಪXೆ ಪೆಯನು 5ದ{ಪ45ದವರ 8ವರಗಳl, zೕ ಉತರಗಳl/ Hಾದ ಉತರಗಳl, ಪಷ|ತ zೕ ಉತರಗಳl, ನಮೂ2ೆಗಳl, ಸಂ9ಾವ2ೆ }ಲು7ಗಳl, 8ಷಯ ತ~ರ ಅ•^ಾಯ, zೕ ಉತರೆ< ಅಭಗ1ಂದ 5Lೕಕೃತ-ಾದ ಆ_ೇಪ?ೆಗಳl, 3ೋಪ ಪತಗಳl/ ಾಖ/ೆ ಇ.ಾ=ಗಳನು ಆCಾ ಪೕ_ೆಗಳ ಪzKಗಳl ಪxಣ3ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ-ೇ 8/ೇ Hಾಡ&ೇಕು. 4) 88ಧ ಪೕ_ಾ ೇಂದಗ1ಂದ ಪೕ_ೆಯ ನಂತರ 5Lೕಕಸ/ಾದ ಸstಾತRಕ ಪೕ_ೆಯ ಉ1ದ ಪXೆ ಪೆಗಳl (ಾಗೂ ಅನುಪಯುಕ ಓಎಂಆk (ಾwೆಗಳನು ಆCಾ ಪೕ_ೆಗಳ ಉತರ ಪೆಗಳ HೌಲHಾಪನ '(ಾಗೂ Fಾ<€ಂ• ಪzKಗಳl ಪxಣ3ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ 8/ೇ Hಾಡತಕ<ದು. ಾಯದDಯವರ ಆೇಶದ nೕTೆ3ೆ, (ಎಂ.}.ಬಣಾk) ಸ(ಾಯಕ ಾಯದD, ಕ2ಾಟಕ /ೋಕFೇ-ಾ ಆ@ೕಗ. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 13. Perusal of the impugned order indicate that there is no discussion or reasoning assigned except the one found at paragraphs 11 and 12, justifying such direction. 14. However, learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to justify issuance of directions as noted above. Said provision reads as under; "25. Monitoring and reporting.— (1) xxx (2)xxx (3)xxx (4)xxx (5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity." 15. Clearly the State Information Commission is indeed authorised to issue recommendations specifying the steps which required to be taken in his opinion for the purpose of promoting the practice which are in conformity with the spirit of the Act. 16. However, the issue at hand is regarding time period fixed for the purpose of destruction of answer script after lapse - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 of 6 months from the date of announcement of result by the petitioner Commission which is traceable to Annexure-15B(3) of the handbook which is further confirmed by the Official Memorandum dated 16.12.2016 produced along with the memo dated 5.1.2026. The impugned order do not refer to any of the provisions of the Right to Information Act which run contrary to the said Annexure- 15B(3) of the handbook. Sub-section (5) of Section 25 as extracted above, in the considered view of this Court can be invoked only if in the event of the State Information Commission coming to the conclusion that the practice of the Public Authority in relation to exercise of its function not being in conformity with the provisions provided under the Act. Section 25 of the Act on the whole provides monitoring and reporting to Central Commission. Therefore, it does not authorise or vest any power with the Commission to issue direction as the one issued at paragraph 13 of the impugned order. Such a direction being one without authority of law cannot be sustained as rightly contented by the petitioner. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 17. As regards direction contained in paragraph No.14 is concerned, by the said direction respondent authorities has indeed appointed one Smt. Divya Prabhu as the Information Officer. Justification for such a direction is sought to be made by learned counsel respondent referring to (ii)(a)(8) of Section 19. It is relevant to extract the said provision, which reads as under; "19. Appeal.- (1) to (7) xxx (8) In its decision, Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to- (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including.- (i) xxx (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." 18. Even a bare perusal of said provision would not indicate any authority being vested with the respondent/ Commission to pass direction as one found at paragraph 14 referred to above. Language employer under (a) of sub-section (8) of Section 19 of the Act, indicate that such power for appointing the officer under (ii) (a)(8) of Section 19 may have - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 to be invoked only in the event of public authority not having any Information Officer to secure the compliance of the provisions of the Act. It does not in any case authorise the Information Commissioner to remove, dismiss or appoint any other officer as sought to be made in the instant case. 19. As regard to the direction at paragraph No.16, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said direction arises out of a wrong construction of the reasoning assigned by the Information Officer. He submits though the results of the exams conducted by the petitioner were indeed announced on 12.04.2012, result of the respondent No.1 had not been announced. Therefore, reading of such an endorsement by the respondent/authority to contend that the Information Officer had lied about the announcement of result despite there being announcement of result in Gazette Notification dated 12.04.2012 is unsustainable. There is considerable force in submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the respondent No.2 has called upon the Information Officer of petitioner to show cause why the penalty proceedings shall not be initiated by misreading the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:231 WP No. 6654 of 2020 answer as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Endorsement dated 31.12.2018 produced at Annexure-D issued by the Information Officer had specifically referred to the Registration Number 26782 of the respondent No.1 and specifically stated that the result of the respondent No.1 had not been announced, which as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner has lost sight by the respondent No.2. 20. In view of the above reasoning and discussion, petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 03.02.2020, 11.02.2020 and 12.02.2020 in case No.KIC 2369 APL 2019 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexures-F, G and H are quashed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6