The Right to Information Act emphasizes balancing transparency and confidentiality, ensuring procedural fairness in public recruitment information disclosure.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application is directed against the order dated 13.08.2008 and 10.09.2008 passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal Case no. 614 of 2008. Being aggrieved from the above orders, the Petitioner-Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short JPSC) has preferred the present writ petition praying interalia to quash the above order dated 13.08.2008 and 10.09.2008 on the ground that the learned Jharkhand State Information Commission did not provided any opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement while passing the order dated 13.08.2008 and has directed the petitioner to provide the information to respondent no. 3, without acknowledging the fact that for maintaining the confidentiality of the selection process of the Public Service Commission the information no. 2, 4, 5 and 6 could not have been provided.

3. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-JPSC had made following submissions: -

(i) It has been contended that when the written statement was filed by the JPSC after the order dated 13.08.2008, the State Information Commission on complete non-application of the mind has passed the order dated 10.09.2008, issuing a Show Cause upon the PIO, JPSC as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him u/s 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(ii) Learned counsel had also argued that JPSC on the basis of the requisitions received from different Universities of Jharkhand for appointing the Lecturers of different subjects issued Advertisement no. 01/2007. The JPSC completed the recruitment process and final result was issued and consequent thereto, the recommendations were sent to the Universities on 14.01.2008.

It is only after the recruitment process was over, the respondent no. 3 filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the PIO, JPSC, requesting to provide 6 (six) information as provided in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(iii) It has been also submitted that from perusal of the Annexure-1, it shows that the information is either in question form or related to third party information. Further, the information also relates to providing details of the member of selection committee i.e. experts who have given marks in the selection process.

(iv) As no information was provided to the respondent no. 3, he preferred statutory ‘First Appeal’ before the first Appellate Authority and thereafter ‘Second Appeal’ before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. The State Information Commission registered the same as Appeal no. 614 of 2008 and summon was issued to PIO, JPSC on 13.08.2008.

(v) It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the information, which could be provided to respondent no. 3 under the provision of the Act and the reasons for not providing other information was sent to the respondent no. 3, on 11.08.2008. The JPSC in terms of summon issued, appeared before the State Information Commission and filed an application stating the reasons as to why the same could not be provided to respondent no. 3, mainly on the ground that the information sought relates to 3rd party information as details like address of all candidates who appeared in the interview, marks obtained by them, their education qualification and other information. The information sought by the respondent no. 3 does not involve any public interest and further the same cannot be provided to maintain confidentiality of the selection process. Accordingly, t