SCC Online: Sikkim: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
The Court directed the SPSC to furnish the relevant information sought by the respondent and recorded the respondent’s undertaking not to disseminate the information on social media.
Sikkim High Court: In a
writ petition filed by the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) assailing
the orders of the Sikkim Information Commission directing disclosure of
recruitment-related information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the
Single Judge Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., directed the State Public
Information Officer to furnish the relevant information to the RTI applicant
and recorded the applicant’s undertaking not to place the information on any
social media platform.
Background
The respondent sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) from the petitioner for the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022, including the list of successful candidates for various posts, their roll numbers, marks obtained, and also the details of candidates falling under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in the same examination.
While certain information was furnished by the SPSC, disclosure of other details was declined. The first appellate authority directed disclosure only in respect of a candidate who had consented under Section 11(1), RTI Act and held that information relating to candidates who had withheld consent was exempt under Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act.
Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Sikkim Information Commission (SIC), which with order dated 17 June 2025, directed the petitioner to provide the consolidated merit list of all candidates who had appeared in the interview/viva voce along with their marks. Challenging these directions, the petitioner SPSC approached the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the SPSC was willing to comply with the SIC’s order, provided that the respondent would not upload the information on any social media platform.The respondent, in turn, stated that he had no objection to the said condition.
The Court noted grievance of Respondent 2, regarding denial of permission to be accompanied by a family member during the appellate hearing, despite his hearing impairment, was only tangential to the substantive relief sought as the second appellate authority had already granted the relief claimed, no further consideration of the issue was necessary.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the SPSC to furnish the relevant information sought by the respondent and recorded the respondent’s undertaking not to disseminate the information on social media. Pending applications were also disposed of.
[Sikkim PCS v. Sikkim Information Commission, WP(C) No. 57 of 2025, decided on 15-5-2026]
The Court directed the SPSC to furnish the relevant information sought by the respondent and recorded the respondent’s undertaking not to disseminate the information on social media.
Background
The respondent sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) from the petitioner for the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022, including the list of successful candidates for various posts, their roll numbers, marks obtained, and also the details of candidates falling under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in the same examination.
While certain information was furnished by the SPSC, disclosure of other details was declined. The first appellate authority directed disclosure only in respect of a candidate who had consented under Section 11(1), RTI Act and held that information relating to candidates who had withheld consent was exempt under Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act.
Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Sikkim Information Commission (SIC), which with order dated 17 June 2025, directed the petitioner to provide the consolidated merit list of all candidates who had appeared in the interview/viva voce along with their marks. Challenging these directions, the petitioner SPSC approached the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the SPSC was willing to comply with the SIC’s order, provided that the respondent would not upload the information on any social media platform.The respondent, in turn, stated that he had no objection to the said condition.
The Court noted grievance of Respondent 2, regarding denial of permission to be accompanied by a family member during the appellate hearing, despite his hearing impairment, was only tangential to the substantive relief sought as the second appellate authority had already granted the relief claimed, no further consideration of the issue was necessary.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the SPSC to furnish the relevant information sought by the respondent and recorded the respondent’s undertaking not to disseminate the information on social media. Pending applications were also disposed of.
[Sikkim PCS v. Sikkim Information Commission, WP(C) No. 57 of 2025, decided on 15-5-2026]
.JPG)
.JPG)
