Laws, Courts & Judgments.

Transparency in Recruitment: CIC Overrules Privacy Claims, Orders Disclosure of Candidate Marks

In a significant reinforcement of transparency in public employment, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that the marks secured by candidates in public recruitment examinations are subject to disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The decision, delivered by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, addresses the persistent issue of public authorities invoking privacy clauses to withhold selection data. By citing a recent Bombay High Court precedent, the CIC has clarified that the disclosure of such marks does not constitute an infringement of privacy, but rather a vital step in maintaining institutional accountability.

The Conflict: Transparency vs. Privacy

The appeal arose from a claim by Mrityunjay Kumar, a candidate who sought details regarding an internal competitive examination (IAM quota) for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) at Banaras Locomotives Works. While the respondent provided Kumar with his own marks, they refused to share the scores of other successful candidates, relying on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act—which relates to the privacy of personal information.

The appellant contended that transparency in the selection process was necessary to verify the fairness of the departmental examination. The public authority, conversely, maintained that the scores of third-party candidates were protected information not subject to disclosure.

Bridging the Gap through Judicial Precedent

The core of the Commission’s reasoning lies in the alignment of RTI norms with judicial philosophy. Commissioner Tiwari highlighted the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Versus Public Information Officer and Registrar & Ors. (2024), which serves as a guiding principle in this matter.

The High Court observed that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" when it comes to public employment. Withholding the marks of successful candidates serves only to allow unreasonable doubts to linger, undermining trust in public institutions. The Commission adopted this logic, concluding that the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be weaponized to suppress the results of a recruitment process funded and conducted by a public body.

Key Observations

The Commission’s decision underscores a shift toward greater disclosure:

• On the necessity of transparency: "Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability... Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant."
• On recruitment integrity: "The disclosure of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test... did not constitute any exempted information or did not affect the confidentiality of the exam so conducted."
• On the mandate of the Act: The Commission reiterated that the respondent’s reliance on Section 8(1)(j) for withholding marks of selected candidates was "not convincing."

What This Means for Future Recruitments

The CIC has directed the respondent to provide a revised, comprehensive reply to the appellant within two weeks, detailing the category-wise marks of all selected candidates in both the written and interview components.

This decision sets a crucial precedent for applicants across the board: information regarding the scoring of successful candidates in public competitions is not a private matter but a public one. It mandates that public authorities must operate with openness, ensuring that merit remains the only metric in recruitment and that the process withstands the scrutiny of those who participated in it.