Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

April 2016

Part A Decision of Supreme Court

By Jinal Sanghvi | Shraddha Bathija
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Public Service Commissions within RTI ambit

The Supreme Court held that candidates in recruitment examinations can seek scanned copies of answer sheets and tabulation of interview marks under the Right to Information (RT I) Act, but the right to information does not extend to disclosure of names of examiners.

A Bench of Justices M.Y. Eqbal and Arun Mishra in the case ‘Kerala Pub. Service Commn. & Ors. vs. State Information Commn. & Anr’ said disclosure of those who evaluated their mark sheets would not be in public interest.

The Apex Court held:
“The request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further, create a situation where the potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in the same state or in the same level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam.”

You May Also Like