2008 (12) TMI 543 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to Information - Selection proceeding disclosure - Held that - The information sought by the applicant is in respect of selection of process conducted by public authority to fill a public post. The argument that information claimed is personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest is again misconceived. The applicant has sought information in respect of performance of the candidates for the public post. The information sought is not personal information. The medical history of the candidate, the assets owned by the candidate, or such other details which are personal to him can be said to be part of personal information. But the marks obtained by candidates to determine the merit of a candidate for the public post, thus cannot be said to be personal information. The petitioner is bound to maintain the record of the selection process so as to instill confidence of all the candidates. The marks obtained by each of the candidate cannot be said to be a personal information which would cause any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the said argument. Thus we do not find that disclosure of such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act.

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Information Commissioner directing disclosure of marks obtained by selected candidate and applicant; Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:

1. The applicant sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding promotion criteria and performance scores. The petitioner disputed the order of the Central Information Commissioner directing disclosure of marks obtained by the selected candidate and the applicant under various heads. The petitioner argued for exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act.

2. The court considered the argument of the petitioner regarding exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act, which pertains to information available in a fiduciary relationship. The court clarified that the person mentioned in this section is not synonymous with a public authority as defined in the Act. Information exempted under this section is that which comes to the knowledge of a person in confidence. The court emphasized that information available to a public authority cannot be considered as information in a fiduciary relationship.

3. The court further elaborated on the concept of a fiduciary relationship, emphasizing trust, confidence, loyalty, and care of assets. It provided examples of fiduciary relationships such as attorney-client, guardian-ward, principal-agent, etc. The court concluded that the selection process conducted by a public authority for a public post does not fall under a fiduciary relationship exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.

4. Addressing the argument that the information sought is personal and unrelated to public activity, the court disagreed. It noted that the marks obtained by candidates for a public post are not personal information like medical history or personal assets. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency in the selection process to instill confidence in all candidates.

5. The court determined that the marks obtained by candidates do not constitute personal information leading to an invasion of privacy. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the argument for exemption from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act.

6. In conclusion, the court upheld the order of the Central Information Commissioner, directing the disclosure of marks obtained by the selected candidate and the applicant, emphasizing transparency in the selection process for public posts.

← Previous Next →