Bombay HC: Court Clerk Exam Marks Are Public Info, Not Private Under RTI

Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday emphasized the importance of transparency in the recruitment process for public posts, stating that the marks obtained by candidates in such processes should not be considered private information.

The court asserted that withholding this information breeds doubts and undermines accountability, which is essential for fair public recruitment.

A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain passed this order in response to a plea filed by Onkar Kalmankar, who had appeared for a 2018 junior clerk recruitment test at the Pune district court but was not selected.

Kalmankar sought access to the marks of candidates who were selected, including their scores in the written test, typing tests in Marathi and English, and the interview.

The bench noted that the recruitment for public posts must be transparent and that the marks obtained by candidates in such processes are part of a public interest. The court reasoned that the Right to Information (RTI) Act allows the disclosure of such information unless it pertains to private details with no connection to public activity. It observed that withholding this information would not only promote doubts but also hinder accountability in the functioning of public authorities.

The court directed the relevant authorities to provide Kalmankar with the details of the marks obtained by the selected candidates within 6 weeks. The bench further stated that disclosing marks in the context of public examinations for a public post would not violate privacy or constitute an unwarranted invasion.

Kalmankar had initially sought the information through an RTI request, but his appeal was denied by both the public information officer and the state information commissioner. This led him to approach the Bombay High Court, seeking judicial intervention for the disclosure of the marks.

The judgment reinforces the need for transparency in public recruitment processes, ensuring that candidates and the public are aware of how selection decisions are made.

By ruling that marks obtained in these processes are public information, the court has set a precedent for transparency in recruitment for public posts.