Marks In Public Recruitment Exams Not Private Or Confidential, Disclosure To Fellow Candidate Under RTI Act Requires No Third-Party Consent: Allahabad High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi has held that marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment examination do not constitute private or confidential information, and a fellow candidate seeking such marks through an RTI application does not require the consent of the third party whose marks are sought. The Court, however, reversed the Central Information Commission's direction to supply photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets, finding that permitting the applicant to inspect them was sufficient compliance under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioners, the Union of India and the Public Information Officer of Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, challenged two orders passed by the Central Information Commission dated 13.05.2009 and 04.06.2009. The dispute arose from an application submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by a candidate who had participated in a written examination conducted by the Railways for selection to the post of Legal Assistant. The applicant sought disclosure of the marks obtained by himself and two other candidates, along with photocopies of their answer sheets.
In response, the Public Information Officer supplied the question paper but declined to provide photocopies of the answer sheets. The applicant was permitted to inspect the answer sheets on any working day, and the marks were also not initially disclosed. The applicant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission, which directed the authorities to provide photocopies of the answer sheets. The petitioners disclosed the marks obtained by the candidates but sought review of the direction requiring supply of photocopies of answer sheets, contending that such information could be declined under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The review petition was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present writ petition challenging the Commission’s directions.
Perusing Section 11 of the RTI Act on third-party information, the Court observed that "it goes clear that sufficient safeguards have been provided in the event any third party information is sought and in such circumstances, the authority, which is under the obligation to give information shall be giving notice to that third party to give its reply before the information is given. The main threat is on the confidentiality of information on the principle of right to privacy."
On the concepts of public interest and public activity under the Act, the Court recorded that "public interest normally in general could be where the common man's interest in particular affairs may be not an individual interest but relating to society or otherwise a class or a group which can be classified for a limited extent with reference to subject matter for which the information relates to. Public activity is also in our considered view relates to substantial public interest involved where public at large gets affected. So in a matter where in general a public interest may be involved, the information must be given as a realm. The object of the Act is to give information subject to the riders created under Section 8. So wherever there is public interest involved and there is absolutely no private information sought for, the endeavour of the authority would be to furnish the information sought for."
On the nature of marks obtained in a public recruitment examination, the Court observed that "all those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is prepared" and that such an examination "has an element of public activity where disclosure of marks obtained by candidates shall serve a larger public interest." It further recorded that "marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8. Well of course, if an outsider seeks information, department may take a valid defence of confidentiality."
On the question of photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates, the Court stated that "it may involve checking of answer sheets, signatures of examiners etc. and therefore, it may not be appropriate to disclose the names, signatures of the examiners and for that purpose therefore, if the authority directs the applicants seeking information to peruse the answer sheets, it would suffice the need. There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain the photocopies of answer sheets of another candidate, however, he can always ask for the photocopy of his own answer sheet."
On the purpose behind a candidate seeking such information, the Court observed that "the purpose of a candidate seeking information in such competitive examination can be understood as a curiosity to know how many marks he has obtained and whether his answer sheet is correctly examined or not."
On the availability of legal remedies in cases of grievance regarding evaluation, the Court stated that "if a candidate is aggrieved in any manner for wrongful checking of answer sheet or he finds upon perusal that the answer sheets of other candidates contained wrongly awarded marks, he can always question this in an appropriate legal proceeding drawn in a court of law, where the court is always vested with the power to summon the answer sheets."
On the sufficiency of information furnished under the Act, the Court recorded that "an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking relevant information, if furnished, the application stands satisfied. It may not be necessary always to provide the copies of the official records/ documents which the department considers would neither be necessary nor, would serve any purpose practically for which the information has been sought. If sufficient information is there and perusal of records is permitted, it should suffice the need qua mandate contained under the Act, 2005."
Also Read: FIR Drafted With Advocate's Assistance Does Not Dilute Its Credibility: Allahabad High Court
The Bench directed that: “Thus, according to us, sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets of the petitioners is not necessary and the original order of commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to reverse.”
“Writ petition thus, partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are directed to provide photocopies of the answer sheets of the candidates. Since the petitioners have not raised any irregularity in his answer sheets therefore, information regarding marks is taken to be sufficient.”
“In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The orders passed by the Central Information Commission and the Information Commission dated 13.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 are hereby quashed to the extent they directed for supply of photocopies of answer sheets to the respondents.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Krishna Ji Shukla, Shekhar Kumar Yadav
For the Respondents: Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Case Title: Union of India Through G.M. Diesel Locomotive and Another v. Central Information Commission New Delhi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:44589-DB
Case Number: Writ – C No. 39694 of 2009
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar, Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
