2008 (11) TMI 330 - HC - Central Excise

Right to Information Act, 2005 - The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by Central Information Commission, directing the petitioner to disclose information in respect of marks obtained by respondent No. 2 in written test; interview as well as marks obtained by the last candidate who was found suitable to be promoted - Respondent No. 2 has sought information in respect of his grading by the Competent Authority. Such information is not personal information as the information sought is in respect of right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion in accordance with Rules. The personal information can be said to be information relating to a person and not in respect of grading of a candidate. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner that under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, such information cannot be supplied. The argument that information sought is part of vindictiveness of respondent No. 2 is not tenable. The information sought is in respect of marks obtained which cannot be said to wanting in bona fides in any manner. - In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Information Commission directing disclosure of marks and annual confidential reports under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order of the Central Information Commission directing the disclosure of information regarding marks obtained by a candidate in a written test, interview, and the last candidate promoted, along with annual confidential reports. The petitioner argued that the information had already been communicated earlier, and the request was made with a vindictive attitude to involve the Bank and its Officers in litigation. The petitioner contended that personal information, including marks obtained by a candidate, cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Court held that the petitioner, being a state entity, is obligated to act fairly and consider all eligible candidates for promotion in accordance with rules and guidelines. The petitioner's decision-making process must adhere to the principles of fairness as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the information regarding interview marks had already been disclosed, indicating that such information could be provided to the candidate. The request for grading information by the Competent Authority was not considered personal information but rather related to the candidate's right to be considered for promotion according to the rules. Therefore, the argument that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act prohibited the disclosure of such information was dismissed. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the request was made out of vindictiveness, emphasizing that the information sought was regarding marks obtained and did not lack bona fides.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Central Information Commission's order for disclosure of the requested information. The judgment clarified that the information sought was not considered personal but relevant to the candidate's right to fair consideration for promotion, in line with constitutional provisions.