Case at a Glance
An unsuccessful candidate for the post of Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police sought, under the RTI Act, the videography of the Band Skill Test, which carried 60 of 100 marks. The State Information Commission refused it, saying he had shown no malice or subversion of the process and the recording concerned other candidates. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that information with a direct nexus to public recruitment cannot be withheld by calling it personal, that the right to information cannot depend on first proving the irregularity it is meant to test, and directed the recording to be supplied within 30 days.
Haryana Police advertised Bandsman (Constable) posts on 30 November 2022. The process had a Knowledge Test (20 marks), a qualifying Physical Screening Test and a Band Skill Test (60 marks), held on 28 January 2024 under videography. The petitioner, from the Backward Class-B category, qualified the earlier stages. The final list of February 2024 gave names without marks, and another candidate was selected against the sole BCB post in the Brass Band. Marks placed on record later showed the petitioner at 38.6 and the selected candidate at 53.6, the gap arising mainly in the Band Skill Test.
On 11 November 2024 he applied under the RTI Act for answer sheets, marks and the Band Skill Test videography for BCB candidates. The SPIO refused under Section 8(1)(j) on 12 December 2024 and the first appeal was dismissed. On 22 January 2026 the State Information Commission directed release of candidates’ marks but refused the videography, finding no material showing malice or prima facie subversion of the process.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a public authority refuse an unsuccessful candidate the video recording of a recruitment test on the ground that it contains other candidates’ performance and that he has not first shown any irregularity?
Recruitment Records Are Not Private Papers
The Court relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Union Public Service Commission v. N. Sugathan, (2011) 12 DEL CK 0253, that an unsuccessful applicant is entitled to know why another was preferred so that he can judge arbitrariness, and on Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 02 CHH CK 0064, that evaluation of examinations for public posts is a public activity. It held that information with a direct nexus to a public recruitment cannot be denied merely by labelling it personal information. The recording was the contemporaneous record of the very assessment that decided most of the marks.
The State argued that the petitioner played a different instrument (bass drum, against the selected candidate’s clarinet). The Court said this did not decide whether the recording was exempt; the case was about access to the record, not about the correctness of marks. Rejecting the Commission’s approach, it held that the right to seek information cannot depend on proving the irregularity the information is meant to test. That the video also shows other candidates did not justify withholding the whole record from a participant.
What the Court Actually Held
- Information with a direct nexus to public recruitment cannot be withheld simply by calling it personal information under Section 8(1)(j).
- A candidate need not first establish malice or irregularity before seeking records that would show whether the process was fair.
- The Commission’s order of 22 January 2026 was set aside to the extent it denied the Band Skill Test videography.
- The authorities must furnish the information to the petitioner within 30 days of the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It opens recruitment-test recordings to scrutiny by the candidates who took the test.
- It rejects the circular demand that applicants prove wrongdoing before getting the evidence.
- It narrows the use of the personal-information exemption in public recruitment.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Job Aspirants
- You can seek the video of a practical or skill test in which you took part, especially where it carries most of the marks.
- Ask for marks and records promptly; selection lists without marks can be followed up under RTI.
For Counsel
- Rely on N. Sugathan and Kewal Singh Gautam where authorities invoke Section 8(1)(j) for recruitment records.
- Show the weight of the disputed stage in the final merit to establish relevance.
Key Takeaways
- Recruitment-test videos are public records for participants.
- Proof of malice is not a precondition to RTI access.
- Section 8(1)(j) cannot be used merely by labelling records personal.
- The video must be supplied within 30 days.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I get the video of my recruitment test under RTI?
In this case the High Court held that the video of a recruitment skill test, which decided most of the marks, had to be given to the unsuccessful candidate. The authority could not refuse it merely because it showed other candidates.
Do I have to prove the selection was unfair first?
No. The Court held that the right to information cannot depend on first proving the irregularity that the information is meant to test.
Does this mean the selection was cancelled?
No. The Court decided only the right to access the recording; it did not examine the correctness of marks or the selection.
Conclusion
The judgment applies the RTI Act to modern recruitment, where practical tests are filmed. A candidate who lost mainly on a filmed test is entitled to see that record.
Practical takeaway: Candidates challenging recruitment should first seek the underlying records, including videos, under RTI; authorities cannot insist on proof of wrongdoing before supplying them.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com