The Bombay High Court, in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs. Public Information Officer & Others, ruled that marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process are not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency in public processes, holding that such disclosure serves a larger public interest.

1. Background of the Case

• Petitioner’s Application: Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar participated in the recruitment process for Junior Clerk in Pune District Court in 2018.
• Non-Selection and Inquiry: Despite attending the interview, the petitioner was not selected and sought information about his and other candidates' marks under the RTI Act.

2. Response by Authorities

• Denial of Information: The Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the request, citing Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules, 2009, labeling the information as confidential.
• First and Second Appeals: Both appeals were dismissed on similar grounds, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition.

3. Issues Raised

• Whether marks of other candidates in a public recruitment process are exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• Whether the denial based on Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules, 2009, and the instructions in the recruitment advertisement was valid.

4. Court’s Observations

• Transparency in Public Recruitment: Marks in public recruitment processes are not personal information unrelated to public activity. Disclosure promotes accountability and dispels doubts about fairness.
• Privacy and Public Interest: The Court distinguished between unwarranted invasion of privacy and justified public interest in disclosure.
• Interpretation of Rules: Rule 13(e) pertains to the confidentiality of the examination process itself (e.g., question papers, examiner identities) but does not apply post-examination to marks disclosure.

5. Judgment and Directions

• Partial Allowance of Petition: The impugned orders denying information about other candidates' marks were set aside.
• Directions to Respondents: The Court directed respondents to provide the petitioner with marks of candidates 1–363 within six weeks, contingent upon cost deposit.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Right to Information Act, 2005:

   • Section 8(1)(j): Exemption for personal information unless justified by larger public interest.
   • Section 11: Confidential third-party information and its conditional disclosure.

2. Maharashtra District Courts RTI (Revised Rules), 2009:

   • Rule 13(e): Confidentiality of examination processes.

Ratio Decidendi:

• The Court held that public recruitment processes must adhere to principles of transparency and accountability, aligning with the RTI Act’s objectives. Marks of candidates in such processes are not exempt from disclosure as they pertain to public interest.

Subjects:

RTI, Public Recruitment, Judicial Transparency 

#RTIAct #PublicRecruitment #JudicialTransparency #RightToInformation #PrivacyVsTransparency