ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in Case No. 2948/Ma.tha.aa/2013, dated 13.11.2013 of the first respondent and quash the same.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC/petitioner, in short) challenging an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (Commission/R2 in short).

2. The TNPSC had conducted Group-I Service Examinations in July 2012 for 131 posts. The selection of candidates was to be on the basis of marks secured in the written examination that comprised of two papers, General Studies-I and General Studies-II. Each of the papers contained inter-alia, two sections i.e. Part-A and Part-B.

3. According to the TNPSC, the valuation of the papers was done in a transparent and proper manner. They would aver that the papers were assigned dummy numbers and evaluated twice, by two different examiners.

4. The aggregated marks secured by the candidates in the double valuation by two independent examiners was sent for the selection process. Thus, the TNPSC has no details of the marks secured by the individual candidates and has in its possession only the aggregate marks secured by the candidates, on the basis of which the candidates were selected.

5. R2, upon whom service is complete, and name printed in the cause list, has chosen not to appear. He was unsuccessful in the selection process and by letter dated 27.03.2013 sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘Act’ in short), about the names and Register numbers of the candidates, who had secured full marks i.e. 75/75, in the examination conducted.

6. The break-up of the 75 marks sought is, 40 marks and 35 marks in General Studies-I and General Studies-II papers, that comprised multiple choice questions for which 1 mark had been awarded per question. The request of R2 for information came to be rejected by the petitioner by its memo dated 08.04.2013 relying upon the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of Act.

7. An appeal had been preferred before R1/Commission on 29.04.2013. The matter appears to have been heard in detail by R1 before whom, the querist/Information seeker/R2 as well as the original Authority, that is, the Public Information Officer of the TNPSC, were heard.

8. The stand taken by TNPSC before R1 was that the raw data that was sought for by R2 is not immediately available as the basis of selection was only the aggregated marks that were furnished to it. Thus, while it would not be impossible to secure the raw data being the break-up of the marks specifically relating to the multiple choice sections of the paper, it would be cumbersome, to say the least.

9. The appeal had also been rejected on 29.05.2013 on the basis that the examination and valuation process was appropriate and as such, the details sought could not be provided. In further appeal by R2 before R1, an elaborate enquiry was conducted. The records of R1 were called for which reveal that R1 had engaged in the collation of data at its own initiative, in arriving at the conclusion that the data sought for by R2 must be supplied in larger public interest.

10. The trigger for seeking of information by R2 does not appear to be on a mere whim but based upon media reports to the effect that the question papers had been leaked prior to the conduct of the examination and this had prejudiced the interests of a large section of the aspirants.

11. The records did reveal that complaints had been filed not only by R2, by other candidates as well, both before the TNPSC as well as before the grievance cell of the Chief Minister’s office and that media reports on the irregular processes and procedures, had been available from 2012 itself.

While it would have been appropriate had the Commission referred to the basis on which it renders the findings on the aspect of public interest, the Commission proceeds on the basis that there had been no specific objection