Disclosure of marks obtained in public recruitment not violation of privacy: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday held that marks obtained by candidates in recruitment process to public posts can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and disclosure of the same will not amount to violation of candidates' privacy.A Division Bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed earlier orders by the Pune District Court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) and subsequent appellate authorities, which had denied the disclosure of such information citing privacy violation."Similarly, in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates. The legislature has advisedly used the expression 'unwarranted.' Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is unwarranted invasion," the Court said in its ruling..The case originated from the recruitment process for the post of Junior Clerk at Pune District Court. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, a candidate from Solapur, participated in the recruitment exams following an advertisement issued in 2018. Kalmankar, who was ranked 289th in the Marathi typing test and 250th in the English typing test, was not selected for the position. After his results were declared, Kalmankar filed a request under the RTI Act in February 2019, seeking his own marks, the marks of candidates ranked 1 to 363 and the selection criteria.The PIO rejected Kalmankar’s request, citing Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules which classified such information as "confidential." This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Authority in May 2019 and the State Information Commissioner dismissed Kalmankar’s second appeal in April 2021. .In his petition before the Bombay High Court, Kalmankar argued that knowing his own marks alone was insufficient for evaluating his relative position in the recruitment process. He sought the marks of other candidates to ensure transparency in the process.Kalmankar’s lawyer, advocate Uday Warunjikar, contended that the marks of other candidates were not confidential and there was no legal justification for withholding them. He highlighted an example from Wardha where the District Court had disclosed the marks of all candidates on the notice board, suggesting that such transparency should be standard practice. Warunjikar also argued that the rules cited by the PIO and the appellate authorities were either misinterpreted or inapplicable in this case.Advocate Rajesh Datar, representing the PIO and the appellate authorities, argued that disclosing the marks of candidates would violate their privacy as the information was considered "third-party information." He also cited Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules and Section 8(j) of the RTI Act which allow exemptions for personal information that could harm an individual’s privacy. Datar further argued that Kalmankar’s request was vague and amounted to a "fishing expedition." He added that Kalmankar had expanded his request to include information about the names of interviewers which was impermissible..In its ruling, the bench disagreed with the lower authorities.It emphasised the need for transparency in public recruitment processes. The Court observed that the recruitment process for the Junior Clerk position at the Pune District Court was a public exercise initiated by a public advertisement."In that sense, this public process must be transparent and above board," the Court stated. The Bench held that the marks obtained by candidates in such a public process cannot be regarded as "personal information" exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. "The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest," the Court underscored..The bench further observed that disclosing such information would not cause an "unwarranted invasion" of privacy of individuals.Hence, the larger public interest in ensuring transparency and accountability in public recruitment justified the disclosure of such information. The Court also clarified that not all personal information is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. "The legislature has advisedly used the expression 'unwarranted.' Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is unwarranted invasion," the Court emphasised..The Court concluded by reiterating the principle that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" and transparency is essential in fostering trust in public institutions..Dr. Uday P Warunjikar along with advocates Sumit Kate, Jenish Jain and Dattaram Bile appeared for the petitioner.Advocate Rajesh S Datar appeared for the RTI authorities.Additional Government Pleader SD Vyas appeared for the State..[Read Order]