Disclosure of marks in public recruitment processes under RTI promotes transparency and accountability, outweighing privacy concerns, reinforcing public trust in selection integrity.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune in pursuance of an advertisement issued in March 2018. He participated in the recruitment process and secured 289^th rank in the Marathi typing test and 250^th in the English typing test.

4. The petitioner was invited to attend the interview, which he did attend. He claims that after the interview, a list of selected candidates was published, but the petitioner did not find any place in the said list. The petitioner inquired but claimed he was not informed about his non-selection.

5. The petitioner, therefore, applied on 20 February 2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the following information:

(i) The marks secured by the petitioner in the screening test, Marathi typing test, English typing test and interviews.

(ii) The marks secured by the candidates at serial nos.1 to 363 in the screening test, Marathi typing test, English typing test and interviews.

(iii) The criteria or the basis for selecting the selected candidates and other information in this regard with full details.

6. On 6 March 2019, the Public Information Officer declined to offer the petitioner any information on the ground that under Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, such information was “confidential”. The petitioner instituted a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 2 April 2019. However, by order dated 24 May 2019, this appeal was dismissed by observing that the recruitment process of employees in a Court is confidential; therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the information sought by him. In addition to Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, the First Appellate Authority invoked clause 19 of the instructions to candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for the recruitment process.

7. The petitioner then instituted a Second Appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Second Appeal No.3618/2019. Since the disposal of the Second Appeal was delayed, the petitioner instituted Writ Petition (Stamp) No.27165/2019. This was disposed of by an order dated 10 March 2021 directing the Second Appellate Authority to dispose of the petitioner’s Second Appeal on or before 30 April 2021. By order dated 27 April 2021, the Second Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s Second Appeal. Hence, the petitioner has instituted this petition to challenge the orders dated 6 March 2019, 24 May 2019 and 27 April 2021 made by the PIO, the First and the Second Appellate Authorities.

8. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner was informed of the marks he had secured in the screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview. Therefore, the grievance on this core does not survive.

9. Dr Warunjikar, learned Counsel fo