Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, applied for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune pursuant to an advertisement issued in March 2018. He participated in the recruitment process, securing 289th rank in the Marathi typing test and 250th in the English typing test. After attending the interview, a list of selected candidates was published, but the petitioner was not selected. He applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 20 February 2019 seeking (i) his own marks in the screening test, typing tests, and interview; (ii) marks of candidates ranked 1 to 363; and (iii) the selection criteria. The Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the request on 6 March 2019 citing Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, which deemed such information confidential. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 24 May 2019, additionally invoking clause 19 of the instructions to candidates. The Second Appeal before the State Information Commissioner was delayed, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal by 30 April 2021. The Second Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 27 April 2021. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging all three orders. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was informed of his own marks, but he persisted in seeking the marks of other candidates to assess his relative position. The respondents argued that the marks of other candidates were exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as personal information, and that disclosure would invade their privacy. The court framed the sole surviving issue: whether the marks of other candidates are exempt from disclosure. The court held that marks obtained in a public selection process for a public post are not 'personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.' The selection process is a public activity, and transparency requires disclosure. The court also noted that the legislature used the word 'unwarranted' in Section 8(1)(j), meaning not every invasion of privacy is exempt. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the PIO to provide the marks of candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 within four weeks, subject to redacting any personal details other than marks. The court clarified that the selection criteria were already in the public domain and that the request for names of interviewers was not permissible.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Exemption from Disclosure - Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act - Personal Information - Marks obtained by candidates in a public selection process for a public post are not 'personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' - The selection process is a public activity, and disclosure of marks promotes transparency and public interest - Such disclosure does not constitute an 'unwarranted invasion of privacy' as the legislature used the word 'unwarranted' - Held that the information sought by the petitioner regarding marks of other candidates is not exempt under Section 8(1)(j) (Paras 27-29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process for the post of Junior Clerk in a District Court constitute 'personal information' exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 6 March 2019, 24 May 2019, and 27 April 2021 are set aside. The Public Information Officer is directed to provide the petitioner with the marks obtained by candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 in the screening test, Marathi typing test, English typing test, and interview, within four weeks from today. The PIO may redact any personal details other than the marks. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to Information
- Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act
- personal information
- public activity
- privacy
- unwarranted invasion
- transparency in recruitment
- marks disclosure
- third-party information
