RSSB Must Give Candidate Copy of Answer Book Under RTI: HC

Examinee Entitled to Copy of Evaluated Answer Book Under RTI; RSSB Directed to Supply It: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court directed the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to give a Stenographer and Personal Assistant Grade-II candidate a copy of her evaluated second-paper answer book within one month, on payment of the prescribed fee (paras 2, 9). Following CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, it held that an examinee may inspect or obtain a copy of an evaluated answer book under the RTI Act unless the examining body establishes an applicable exemption (para 8).

Key holdings

No statutory provision or rule was shown that prohibits supplying an evaluated answer sheet to an RTI applicant (para 6).

An examinee may inspect or obtain a copy of an evaluated answer book unless the examining body establishes an applicable exemption (paras 7-8).

The quoted Supreme Court passages hold that the RTI Act prevails over an examining body's rules and that no fiduciary relationship exists with the examinee (para 7).

The RSSB must supply the copy within one month, on payment of the prescribed fee if not already paid (para 9).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner took part in the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board's (RSSB) selection process for Stenographer and Personal Assistant Grade-II under an advertisement of 26 February 2024 (para 2). She sought a copy of her evaluated second-paper answer sheet under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the quashing of an order dated 29 October 2025, and consideration of her candidature (paras 1-2). Her counsel said the RSSB had told her the copy would be supplied once the selection process was complete, yet none was given after it ended and no reason was assigned (para 3). The RSSB's counsel said that, without statutory rules entitling candidates to copies, no such right could be claimed as a matter of course (para 5).

Court's Findings

The Court found that no statutory provision or rule had been brought to its notice prohibiting the supply of an evaluated answer sheet to a candidate who applies under the RTI Act, 2005 (para 6). It then reproduced a passage setting out the Supreme Court's reasoning in Aditya Bandopadhyay (para 7). In the paragraphs of that judgment quoted there, the Supreme Court said that examining bodies are not security or intelligence organisations and that disclosing answer books infringes no copyright; unless the answer books fall within a Section 8(1) exemption, access must be given. Under Section 22, the RTI Act prevails over an examining body's rules or bye-laws, so copies must be allowed even where those rules bar them, unless the Section 8(1)(e) exemption is shown, and the examining body is not in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee (para 7). Following that law, the Court held that an examinee may inspect or obtain a copy of an evaluated answer book unless the examining body establishes an applicable exemption, and found merit in the petition (para 8).

Legal Principle

Following Aditya Bandopadhyay, an examinee may inspect or obtain a copy of his or her evaluated answer book under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless the examining body establishes an applicable exemption; a recruitment board's plea that no rule entitles candidates to copies did not defeat the claim (paras 5-8).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Candidates in RSSB and other recruitment examinations who want to see how their answer scripts were marked can cite this order when seeking a copy of the evaluated answer book under the RTI Act, 2005. The Board pointed to no rule barring supply, and the Court treated Aditya Bandopadhyay as settling the point: a copy must be given unless the examining body establishes an applicable exemption (paras 6-8). Note the limits of the relief. The Court directed only that the copy be supplied within one month on payment of the prescribed fee; it made no separate direction on her challenge to the order of 29 October 2025 or on her candidature (paras 1, 9).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497
Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 7, 8
Cited by the petitioner's counsel for the holding that an examining body does not stand in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee, so the Section 8(1)(e) RTI exemption is not available for evaluated answer books (para 4). The Court reproduced passages of that judgment on access to evaluated answer books, the RTI Act prevailing over examining bodies' rules under Section 22, and the absence of a fiduciary relationship (para 7), and followed it in holding that an examinee may inspect or obtain a copy of an evaluated answer book unless an applicable exemption is established (para 8).