SYNOPSIS : Bombay High Court ordered the PIO's to Provide the marks obtained by the candidates ranking from 1 to 363 for the post of Junior Clerk in Pune District Court - under Right to Information Act
Petitioner participated in the recruitment process for post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune in march 2018 and secured 289th rank in the Marathi typing test and 250th in the English typing test.
The petitioner sought for the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview and written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, ranging from 1 to 363, for the recruitment process for the post of Junior Clerk in Pune District Court through RTI.
The marks secured by the petitioner in the screening test, Marathi typing test, English typing test and interviews.
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 criteria or the basis for selecting the selected candidates and other information in this regard with full details.
The Public Information Officer declined to offer the petitioner any information on the ground that under Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, such information was “confidential”.
The petitioner instituted a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the PIO
The recruitment process of employees in a Court is confidential and it cannot be disclosed to petitioner. In addition to Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, the First Appellate Authority invoked clause 19 of the instructions to candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for the recruitment process.
The petitioner has instituted writ petition to challenge the orders dated 6 March 2019, 24 May 2019 and 27 April 2021 made by the PIO, the First and the Second Appellate Authorities.
Learned Counsel argued that the District Judge at Wardha had disclosed the marks obtained by all the candidates on the Notice Board for a similar recruitment process. He submitted that there was no justification for the Pune District Court not to adopt the same standards of transparency.
Learned Counsel argued that the District Judge at Wardha had disclosed the marks obtained by all the candidates on the Notice Board for a similar recruitment process. He submitted that there was no justification for the Pune District Court not to adopt the same standards of transparency.
The information sought by the petitioner was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005. Further he argued that the information was correctly denied, having regard to Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009 and clause 19 of the instructions issued to the candidates incorporated in the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment.
Information about the interviewers' names was impermissible.
The criteria for selection were already advertised and, in any event, discernible from the recruitment rules available in the public domain
The marks obtained by the petitioner had already been disclosed to the petitioner without prejudice.
The petitioner's insistence upon disclosure of marks of other candidates involved a breach of their privacy, and such information constitutes third-party information.
Based on the above submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent urged the dismissal of this petition.
By his application dated 20 February 2019, the petitioner had applied for information on the three aspects referred to in paragraph 5 above. However, in the appeal against the PIO’s rejection order dated 6 March 2019, the petitioner sought the names of his interviewers. We agree with Mr. Datar that this was not permissible. Therefore, we do not propose to deal with the petitioner’s request to furnish the names of his interviewers.
During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has already been furnished the marks he secured in the screening test, Marathi and English typing tests, and the interview. Therefore, this part of the petitioner’s grievance stands fully redressed.
Regarding the selection criteria, we are satisfied that they were 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.
There was no obligation to furnish any additional information about the criteria or about the names of the interviewers
The only issue that survives for consideration is the denial of information about the marks obtained by other candidates listed from serial nos.1 to 363 in the screening test, Marathi and English typing tests, and the interviewers
Exemption from disclosure of information --(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(j) 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:”.
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.
"(e) Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination conducted by the Bombay High Court including for the Maharashtra Judicial Service and Maharashtra Higher Judicial Service. The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent Authority whose decision shall be final"
Explanation - No party can insist on the disclosure of any information denting such confidentiality or compromising the integrity of the examination itself.
Court held that such information will not affect the confidentiality of the examination
By disclosing such information to the petitioner, the confidentiality of the examination that had already been concluded would not be affected.
"“19. No enquiry in relation to any application shall be entertained by Office of any District Courts or Taluka Courts.Only enquiries on technical aspects till the link of detailed advertisement is disabled can be made (not by e-mail) on following phone numbers of Computer Section, Bombay High Court, during office hours."
instructions issued to the candidates on 28 March 2018 could never have been invoked to deny the petitioner the information regarding his marks or the marks obtained by other candidates who answered the examination along with him.
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.
There was no obligation to provide additional information about the criteria or the interviewers' names.
Bombay High Court partly allowed 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.
TOPICS