1 ( 2026:JHHC:10784 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5582 of 2008 ---- Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, through its Public Information Officer, Sri Sanjeet Samrendra Lakra, son of Sri Lal Mani Lakra, resident of Road No.1, Kumhar Toli, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jharkhand State Information Commission through its under Secretary, Engineering Hostel No.1, H.E.C. Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Bina Dubey, daughter of not known, C/o Nagendra Tiwary, Lohara Kocha, Hazaribagh Road, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sonal Tiwary, A.C. to A.G. ---- 09/16.04.2026 Notice upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 have already been effected and the name of Mr. Nagendra Tiwary, learned advocate is appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 and counter affidavit has already been filed by the respondent no.3. However, on repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, contesting respondent is respondent no.3. The matter is of the year, 2008 and as such this this matter is being heard in absence of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2 3. This application has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.07.2008 passed in Appeal No. 416 of 2008 by the learned State Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, as contained in Annexure- 6 and 9 respectively, whereby the learned State Information Commissioner has been pleased to direct the petitioner to provide the information no. 1, 2, 5 and 12 to the respondent no.3 in the light of Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi is a constitutional body created under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. He next submits that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi after receiving requisition from the Ranchi University, Ranchi, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and S.K.M. University, Dumka, started selection process for the appointment of Lecturers and accordingly Advertisement No. 1/07 was issued, by which, applications were invited from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturers. He submits that the respondent no. 3 also submitted her application form before the J.P.S.C for consideration of candidature for her appointment on the post of lecturer. He further submits that thereafter interview letter was issued to the respondent no.3 for her appearance before the High Power Interview Board and pursuant to that the respondent no.3 appeared before the High Power Interview Board and her merit was assessed by the High Power Interview Board. After following the procedure and the interview of Lecturers, the J.P.S.C. recommended the names of the successful candidates for appointment on the post of Lecturers on the basis of assessment made by the High 3 Power Interview Board and on the basis of the educational qualifications. The respondent no.3 was not declared successful in the said result. 5. He next submits that after publication of result, the respondent no.3 filed application before the Public Information Officer, J.P.S.C. on 18.1.2008, by which, he sought thirteen informations including names and address of the recommended candidates, name of the University, Examination passed, year, percentage, copy of mark-sheet submitted by those candidates for their educational qualification and marks secured by them in career and interview. He next submits that the said recommendation made by the J.P.S.C. for appointment of Lecturers in different Universities was challenged before this Hon'ble Court by Ph.D. Dharak Sodh Sangh and another, in W. P. (C) No. 270/2008, which was heard on 23.01.2008 and interim order of stay was passed by the High Court, which was subsequently vacated by the order dated 27.02.2008. He submits that by letter dated 08.02.2008, the Public Information Officer, J.P.S.C, informed the respondent no. 3 that no information can be provided in view of aforesaid order dated 23.01.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 270/2008 by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 filed First Appeal before the First Appellate authority and thereafter Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, which was registered as Appeal No. 416 of 2008 and in second appeal summon was issued to the petitioner for its appearance, in which the petitioner appeared and filed written statement stating that information no. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 sought by the petitioner has already been provided and it was pointed out that so far information no. 10 is concerned, that cannot be provided. Further it has been pointed out that information nos. 1, 2, 5 and 12 are related to 3rd party and public 4 interest does not warrant disclosure of such information and as such same cannot be provided. He submits that however by order dated 10.07.2008 direction was issued to the petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect that the said informant cannot be provided and pursuant to that the petitioner filed an affidavit saying the reason that the said informant cannot be provided and however by the impugned order dated 24.09.2008 the petitioner was directed to provide all the information. He further submits that other information has already been provided and certain information as noted hereinabove are concerned that relates to other person in the light of Section 8(1)(e) and (g) of the Right to Information Act, it has not been provided. He also submits that in this background the impugned order has been wrongly passed by the learned Information Commission. He next submits that the said examination was the subject matter of investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the investigation has been made by the C.B.I. and now the chargesheet has been submitted against the erring persons. 6. He relied in the case of Union Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. reported in 2018(4) SCC 530, and refers to paras-9,10 and 11, which reads as under:- “9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters. 5 10. In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on the above parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. 11. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Civil Appeal No. 5924 of 2013.” 7. Relying the above judgment, he submits that parameters of providing information have been considered therein, if he emphasized that exemptions as provided under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the Act reinforced the imperative to protect the integrity and confidentiality of examination process, against indiscriminate information disclosure. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3. 9. The respondent no. 2 is -State Information Commission. The respondent no.3 has already filed counter affidavit wherein argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been dealt with and it has not been disclosed in the counter-affidavit how the 3rd party information can be provided to the respondent no.3. 9. In the aforesaid background, it transpires that the said examination was the subject matter of the investigation by none other than Central Bureau of Investigation. In view of the chargesheet filed by C.B.I., the materials are in the public domain now. 10. It is an admitted position so far as the Information no. 1, 2, 5 and 12 are concerned these were not related to the respondent no.3 that are related to 3rd party information or lack the vitality of being seen upon the public interest. 11. So far Information No. 10 is concerned, that was related to 6 domicile certificate which was for all the candidates which was having no relevance. 12. Under the Right to Information Act, the information can be provided except that information which needed to be protected for maintaining the confidentiality of the recruitment process by the Public Service Commission. In this background, if the 3rd party information as requested by the respondent no.3 was not provided, action of the J.P.S.C. is not vitiated. 13. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (Supra), and further considering that 3rd party information was sought by the respondent no.3, the Information Commission in that view of the matter was not justified to direct the J.P.S.C. to provide the such information. Further, in light of the chargesheet filed by the C.B.I., the materials are now within the public Domain. 14. In view of the above facts, reason and analysis the impugned order dated 10.07.2008 as well as order dated 24.09.2008 passed in Appeal No.416 of 2008 is hereby quashed. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 16.04.26 Satyarthi/ A.F.R.