Amitabh Ahmad vs State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary Police And Ors

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Commission to provide him the cut off marks above which the candidates have been called for the qualifying eligibility test of typing for being considered for appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Stenographer), Bihar Police against Advertisement No. 01/2018.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had fared well in the examination and therefore was very hopeful that he would be called for the qualifying typing test. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner wanted to know the cut off marks above which candidates were called for such typing test. The same was refused to him under the RTI citing secrecy of the examination to be the ground for non-furnishing of such cut off marks before the publication of the final result. The petitioner, not being satisfied by the aforesaid answer, instead of preferring an appeal against the information provided by the PIO of the Commission under the RTI Act, has come up before this Court, seeking a direction to the Commission to provide him the cut off marks.

Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned advocate for the respondent Commission had on an earlier occasion made an oral submission that disclosing the cut off marks for calling candidates for qualifying test in typing would only create confusion and would disturb the secrecy of the examination process.

This Court was not satisfied on this oral submission of the counsel for the Commission and asked him to file his written response. The counter affidavit which has been filed also reiterates the same grounds but with more details.

Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Commission, with reference to counter affidavit has submitted that the final result is published on the basis of the marks obtained in the mains examination of such candidates who have qualified in the typing test. 174 posts in the present instance is required to be filled for which 2820 candidates have been called. In such a situation, disclosing the cut off marks before the declaration of final result would definitely cause the secrecy of the examination process being breached.

There is some justification in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Commission. However, this Court has finally been satisfied on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Commission that within a week of the publication of the final result, the cut off marks shall be disclosed which can be obtained from the Commission. The petitioner can thereafter i.e. after the publication of the final result, seek information regarding the cut off marks and if he finds any anomaly in the preparation of the final result he can approach this Court, if so advised. Mr. Pandey has also informed this Court that the results are shortly be published.

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.