JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, CIRCULAR ROAD, RANCHI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Heard Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3.

Heard Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to SC-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.

This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by Chief Information Commissioner of

Jharkhand Information Commission in Appeal No.191 of 2007 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. By the said order the Chief Information

Commissioner has directed the information sought for by the respondent no.3 to be given by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the information

which was sought for by the respondent no.3 relates to the list of entire candidates who were applicants in the First Primary Trained Teacher

Recruitment Examination conducted by the petitioner-Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 27.05.2003. As per the application, the list of the

applicants as well as the entire merit list of successful and unsuccessful candidates has been sought for by the applicant (respondent no.3 herein) with

respect to the District of Deoghar.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought for by the respondent no.3 cannot be shared by Jharkhand Public Service Commission

under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 particularly in view of the fact that the same is relating to not only the persons who were

successful but also relates to those who were participants but unsuccessful. Furnishing of such details is not in public interest and the same is likely to

be in conflict with other public interests including the preservation of confidentiality of such sensitive information which relates to persons having

participated but remained unsuccessful.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the furnishing of information of the list of candidates who were declared successful, the petitioner

has no objection to furnish that information to the respondent no.3. The counsel further submits that the list of successful candidates was duly

published in the newspaper alongwith the corresponding Roll Numbers and accordingly, they are ready to furnish so far as the list of successful

candidates is concerned.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that such direction would be appropriate in the light of the judgment dated 20.02.2018 passed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s) 6159-6162 of 2013. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been

held in para 10 thereof as follows:

 “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality

of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be

furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as

pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest

requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule

or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters.â€​

Counsel for the petitioner also submits that where information is likely to conflict with the other public interests including efficient operation of the

Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of the sensitive information and accordingly the Right to Information

cannot be applied in the given facts and circumstances. He further submits that revealing of information in connection with those candidates who

ultimately could not succeed in the examination is a very sensitive information and accordingly, he submits that direction to give such information to the

respondent no.3 may not be issued. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the supplementary-affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner on

20.02.2018 has mentioned that the list of the candidates is available in a compact disk which contains the consolidated list of successful and

unsuccessful candidates of Deoghar district. There is no separate C.D. maintained for Deoghar district. The counsel for the petitioner has also

produced a print out of the list which is there in the compact disk and upon perusal of the same, it appears that the said list contains the marks obtained

by all the candidates including the unsuccessful candidates and accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the information given in the

compact disk cannot be handed over to the respondent no.3 as that will amount to disclosing the information including marks etc. of the unsuccessful

candidates which is very sensitive and such order cannot be passed.

Counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand submits that the judgment which is relied upon by the petitioner which has been passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).6159-6162 of 2013 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and he submits that

the application which was filed by the respondent no.3 relates to the entire panel of the candidates and the entire merit list prepared by the petitioner

irrespective of the fact whether they were successful or not successful in particular with reference to Deoghar district only.

Counsel for the respondents further submits that disclosure of the names of the candidates who were unsuccessful is not a sensitive information

and accordingly, appropriate order was passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand and the same is not in conflict with the said

judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the aforesaid judgment dated

20.02.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s) 6159-6162 of 2013, which has been relied upon by the writ petitioner, this

Court finds that the respondent no.3 is entitled to the information being the list of successful candidates alongwith the Roll Numbers, which according

to the petitioner was already published in the newspaper.

But so far as the list of unsuccessful candidates is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that such information is a very sensitive

information and maintaining the balance between the Right to Information and the confidentiality of the information, this Court finds that disclosure of

information regarding unsuccessful candidates should not be made to the respondent no. 3 .

So far as the information regarding unsuccessful candidates is concerned, if any of such case is filed by the petitioner regarding the recruitment

process, it will certainly be open to the petitioner to satisfy the concerned Court for calling for any information from Jharkhand Public Service

Commission as may be required for the purposes of adjudication of the case.

In view of the findings recorded, this Court directs the petitioner Jharkhand Public Service Commission to furnish the information regarding the list

of candidates with their Roll Numbers who were declared successful and whose results were duly declared in the newspaper within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by Chief Information Commissioner of

Jharkhand Information Commission in Appeal No.191 of 2007 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition is set-aside to the extent it relates to

information in connection with unsuccessful candidates and it is upheld only to the extent it relates to the information regarding the list of candidates

with their Roll Numbers who were declared successful and whose results were duly declared in the newspaper.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is partly allowed.

Â