RTI | Disclosure Of Marks Obtained By Candidates In Public Recruitment Process Is Not Invasion Of Privacy: Bombay High Court
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday held that the disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process would not invade the privacy of the candidates and that such disclosure is permissible under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed the orders passed by a Public Information...
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday held that the disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process would not invade the privacy of the candidates and that such disclosure is permissible under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed the orders passed by a Public Information Officer (PIO) and the subsequent ones passed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities, which denied disclosure of information related to the marks obtained by the candidates in a public recruitment process, stating that the same would invade their right to privacy.
The bench noted that the issue pertained to the selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune, which was initiated by inviting applications from all eligible candidates by issuing a public advertisement.
"In that sense, this public process must be transparent and above board. The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be 'personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.' Furnishing such information would also not cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy," the judges held.
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 bench said, adding that the transparency and accountability in a public recruitment process would be promoted by disclosing such information.
"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," the bench observed.
The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, the bench noted.
The judges, further said that since the selection process for Junior Clerks at the District Court in Pune was essentially a public activity which commenced with public advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates, the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates participating in such a process would amount to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
"Similarly, in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates. The legislature has advisedly used the expression 'unwarranted.' Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is unwarranted invasion," the bench emphasised.
Confidentiality of any examination is vital to protect its integrity. No party can insist on the disclosure of any information denting such confidentiality or compromising the integrity of the examination itself, the bench, maintained, however, adding, "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."
Background:
The bench was seized with a petition filed by one Onkar Kalmankar, who sought the detailed list of marks obtained by all the 363 candidates, who appeared for the Marathi Typing Test, English Typing Test and Interviews, for the post of Junior Clerks in the Pune District Courts.
The petitioner contended that he secured 250th rank for English Typing and 289th rank in the Marathi Typing Test. He also was interviewed by the relevant authorities and later on after he gave an interview, a list of selected persons was displayed but his name was not mentioned in the selected candidates' list and thus he sought information on why he was not admitted.
While the petitioner's plea was rejected by the PIO, the First and Second Appellate Authorities, the High Court Bench quashed the said orders and ordered the concerned authorities to disclose the details.
Appearance:
Advocates Dr. Uday Warunjikar along with Advocates Sumit Kate, Jenish Jain and Dattaram Bile, for the Petitioner.
Advocate Rajesh Datar represented the RTI Authorities.
Additional Government Pleaders SV Vyas and AA Alaspurkar represented the State.
Case Title: Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer (Writ Petition 9648 of 2021)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581