CIC: Marks obtained by candidates in recruitment process to public posts can be disclosed under RTI Act and disclosure of the same will not amount to violation of candidates' privacy; Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board asked to provide information

O R D E R

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint for non-compliance dated 18.01.2023 of CIC’s order dated 06.12.2022 in the above matter.

2. The above-mentioned appeal of the appellant, Shri Rohit Rathee was disposed of by the Commission on 06.12.2022 wherein following observations and directions are given:

“Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide an updated and concise revised reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

3. The Appellant vide his letter dated 18.01.2023 reported non-compliance of the above order stating as under:

As per the CIC/DSSSB/A/20221627133 dated 06-12.2022. DSSSB has not complied with the order of ClC and information sought by the applicants still not provided, therefore you are requested to take strict action against DSSSS for not complying with the order of ClC. You are also requested to direct DSSSB to provide full and accurate information sought to the applicant. CIC may also take strict disciplinary action along with heavy fine against DSSSB for contempt of decision of CIC.

4. The CPIO, in compliance with the order dated 06.12.2022 of the Commission provided the following reply dated 07.02.2023 stating as under:

With reference to your letter No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2021/627733 dated 31.01.2023 on the subject cited above, the details of Written Submission are as under: -

1. An application under RTI Act-2005 was received from Sh. Rohit Rathee vide No. DSSSB/R/2022/60590/1 dated 16.01.2023 consisting of 07 points.

2. The matter was transferred to CC-IV Branch for reply in r/o Point No. 5 which provided the information to the applicant on 21.02.2022 as under: "Only Final Marks of candidates are available to them through OARS portal. Information sought is confidential and voluminous and would divert the resources of this branch and hence denied."

3. The reply to points No. 1,2,3,4 & 7 was provided to the applicant on Feb, 2022 by CC-II Branch as under: -

(1). Refer to advertisement of said post code.

(2,3,4) Information sought cannot be provide being third party information.

(7). No

4. Being not satisfied with the reply, the applicant filed appeal with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The Appeal was disposed off by the FAA on 28.03.2022 with the remark-

"I have perused the reply furnished by PIO is found satisfactory. Hence no intervention is needed."

5. The applicant took up the matter with Central Information Commission (CIC) and CIC Notice No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2022/627733 dated 19.11.2022, of Hearing for Appeal on 02.12.2022, was received on 24.11.2022.

6. In pursuance of the above CIC Notice, received in DSSSB on 24.11.2022, consolidated revised reply of all points 1 to 7, was sent to the applicant vide this office letter No. F.2(11)/CC-II/DSSSB/RTI/2022/1720-21 dated 28.11.2022 as under: -

1. Please refer to the Advertisement No. 03/17. Further also refer to point no. 7 of the Result Notice No. 1326 dated 09/12/2021, which inter alia provides that:

"The User Department, i.e., Services Department is requested to thoroughly examine the sports field and sports person certificates from different associations/ federations etc. provided by the sports sub category candidates, in the light of para A (IV), (V) and Para H of DOFT O.M. F. No. 14034/01/2013-Estt. (D) Dated 3rd October, 2013 regarding consolidated instructions on incentives for Sports Persons in Government of India before issuance of any appointment letter, If any candidate does not fulfill the eligibility criteria with regard to sports person category his/her e-dossier may be returned after cancellation of his/her candidature at your level"

2 to 4. The sought information can not be provided being third party information under section 8 (1) (J) of the RTI Act-2005 and as per policy of the Board.

5. The concerned Branch i.e. CC-IV has already replied on 21/02/2022 on RTI portal that "Final marks of candidates are available to them through OARS portal. Information sought is confidential and voluminous and would divert the resources of this branch and hence denied"

6. Response sheet has already provided to candidate through e-mail id (rohitdc29@gmail.com) on 28/11/2022.

7. No

7. CIC vide Order dated 06.12.2022 directed this department to provide an updated and concise reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period on 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order under intimation to the Commission.

8. Accordingly, in compliance with CIC Decision/Order dated 06.12.2022, the copy of revised reply dated 28.11.2022 was again forwarded to the Applicant, under intimation to CIC, vide this office letter F.2(11)/CCII/DSSSB/RTI/2022/1801-02 dated 30.11.2022 (copy enclosed).

It is further informed that the revised requisite information has already been furnished to the applicant, as per RTI Act, 2005 and Policy of the Board. So the question of any non-compliance of Central Information Commission's Order does not arise.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Advocate Pramod Tripathi, representative of the Appellant attended the hearing in person.

Respondent: Shri Bankesh Chander, APIO-cum-Section Officer, attended the hearing in person.

The representative of the Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent in respect of point No. 2 to 5 of the RTI Application.

The Respondent submitted that on 07.02.2023, their office has complied with the directions passed by the Hon’ble Commission wherein a pointwise reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 28.11.2022. He further apprised the bench of the fact that the Appellant had not appeared in the examination for which he is seeking information on point No. 5 of the RTI Application.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the reply given by the Respondent vide letter dated 28.11.2022 was appropriate at that point of time. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in W.P. No. 9648 of 2021 titled as Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Versus Public Information Officer and Registrar & Ors., vide order dated 11.11.2024, has held that marks obtained by candidates in recruitment process to public posts can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and disclosure of the same will not amount to violation of candidates' privacy. The relevant para of the above judgment is reiterated below for ready reference:

“xxx 51. Since we have found that the disclosure of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, typing test and interviewers did not constitute any exempted information or did not affect the confidentiality of the exam so conducted, we must say that the approach of the District authorities in Wardha contributed to the promotion of transparency which should typically be promoted in matters of public recruitment. Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes. Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

52. Therefore, though the Wardha disclosure may not be binding precedents, we still think there was nothing wrong with the District Authorities at Wardha making such disclosures. By making such disclosures, the district authorities at Wardha cannot be said to have breached or acted in ignorance of the provisions in Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and Section 11 of the RTI Act or Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules) 2009 or instructions no.19 issued to the candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk.

53. Regarding the selection criteria, we are satisfied that such criteria are already reflected in the departmental recruitment rules and the instructions given to the candidates. Details of eligibility, age, and selection criteria are already disclosed in the instructions dated 28 March 2018. The petitioner, aggrieved by his non- selection, possibly wished to probe deeper and ascertain what was in the selectors' minds, notably when they marked the candidates in the interview test. This is perhaps the petitioner's intention because, in the appeal memo, the petitioner slipped in additional information regarding the interviewers' names, even though such information was never sought in the original application seeking information. Therefore, we agree with Mr Datar that there was no obligation to provide additional information about the criteria or the interviewers' names.

54. For all the above reasons, we partly allow this petition and set aside the impugned orders to the extent that they denied the petitioner disclosure of marks secured by him and the candidates from 1 to 363 in the written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview for the recruitment process for Junior Clerk at Pune District Court.

55. Further, We Direct the concerned respondents to furnish the petitioner with the marks obtained by candidates 1 to 363 in the written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview for the recruitment process for Junior Clerk at Pune District Court within six weeks of the Petitioner depositing the necessary costs with the PIO.”

In view of the applicability of the above ratio, the reply with respect to point No. 3 and 4 of the RTI Application is not adequate and accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondent to revisit point No. 3 and 4 of the RTI Application and provide a revised reply by furnishing the requisite information, to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance with the directions.

The non-compliance petition is disposed of.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: ROHIT RATHEE v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, CIC/DSSSB/A/2022/627733; 17.01.2025