Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

The case of Onkar Kalmankar v. Public Information Officer (PIO), Session Court, Pune and Ors. delves into the interpretation and application of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, specifically addressing issues of public accountability, transparency, and the responsibility of Public Information Officers (PIOs) in responding to RTI requests. This case is significant as it outlines certain key principles regarding the disclosure of information under the RTI Act, including the balance between public interest and exemptions from disclosure, as well as the procedural obligations of PIOs. The application related to the selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune.

Background of the Case

Onkar Kalmankar, the appellant, had filed an RTI application seeking information about the marks secured by the candidates at serial nos.1 to 363 in the screening test, Marathi typing test, English typing test and interviews. The information was denied under Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, claiming that the information was “confidential”. The First Appellate Authority further invoked clause 19 of the instructions to candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for the recruitment process to deny the information. The appellant argued that he was entitled to know the marks secured by other candidates so that he could assess his relative position compared to the other candidates. The appellant maintained that the information sought did not fall within these exemptions and was essential for promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authority. The respondent argued that the information about the marks obtained by other candidates was exempted from disclosure under 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. 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. of the RTI Act.

Case laws referred to and Legal Principles

1.      Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (para 70) to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already held that personal records, including names, addresses, physical, mental, and psychological status, marks obtained, modes, and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. The decisions' observations must be construed in the context of the controversy involved. Therefore, reading stray sentences outside the context may not properly construe the ratio decidendi of a binding precedent. The confidence in the selection process would be boosted by disclosing the marks obtained by all the candidates in the written test and interviews. The disclosure of marks in a public recruitment process cannot be said to be purely personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In any event, the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Such disclosure would promote transparency and accountability and dispel the lingering doubts about wrongdoings in the public recruitment process. Such disclosures would strengthen the recruitment process by boosting public confidence in it.

2.      Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. V. Rajasthan High Court (Civil appeal No. 2634 of 2013), the Hon’ble Supreme Court stressed transparency in the public recruitment process.

3.      The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Sarya (2011-8-SCC 497), the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted the RTI’s objective of ensuring transparency and accountability and urged examining bodies to adapt to the new disclosure regime. The trend under the new RTI regime is to disclose information that would maintain trust in the recruitment process without unduly compromising the privacy of any candidate.

4.      Section 11 of the RTI Act - though the marks obtained by any candidate in the selection process may relate to such candidate, it cannot be said that the candidate has supplied such information and has been treated as confidential by the candidate. The proviso to Section 11, in any event, allows disclosure if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such a third party. Proviso does not apply in the case of trade and commercial secrets protected by law. Here, we are not concerned with trade or commercial secrets protected by law. Therefore, the objection based on Section 11, which was incidentally not even raised by the PIO or other authorities under the Act, would not apply.

5.      Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. V/s. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors - An examining body entrusted with public functions must act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for the public good and in the public interest. The court clarified that the examining bodies are not in a fiduciary relationship with the examinees but are responsible for protecting the identity of the examiners.    

6.      In Chief Information Commissioner V/s. High Court of Gujarat and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that scope of 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. 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. . Once the examination is concluded and a candidate wishes to know the marks obtained by him or by other candidates in such examination, we do not think that such information will affect the confidentiality of the examination already held. Therefore, based upon Rule 13(e), the information regarding the marks obtained by the petitioner or by the other candidates who answered such an examination could not have been denied to the petitioner.

7.      The RTI Act negates the notion that information may be withheld on the grounds of confidentiality simpliciter. Harm under clause (1) of Section 8 must be identified and invoked to justify the non-disclosure of a document requested under the RTI Act. Clause 19 of the instructions dated 28 March 2018, has nothing to do with the information applied for by the petitioner under the RTI. The above clause cannot detract from the rights granted to any persons under the RTI Act or even dilute the rights granted to any person under the RTI Act. Based on Clause 19 above, the information about the petitioner’s marks or the marks obtained by other candidates could not have been denied.

Order

The Court directed disclosure of marks secured by the appellant 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. The Court held that 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. 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.

Conclusion

Regarding disclosure of marks scored by third parties, this case makes a distinction from some of the case laws commonly relied upon by the public authorities for the denial of information. The case serves as an important reminder of the principles underlying the RTI Act, particularly regarding the duty of public authorities to disclose information, the strict timelines for responding to RTI requests, and the conditions under which information can be withheld. The case also underscores the importance of accountability, transparency, and the public's right to access information, which are central to the functioning of a democratic society. The decision reinforces that the RTI Act must be applied in a manner that promotes openness in government operations while balancing legitimate concerns about privacy, security, and other exemptions.