Transparency in public recruitment must be balanced against individual privacy; however, when parties reach a consensus regarding the disclosure of information on specific protective conditions, the court may adopt such undertaking, rendering ancillary procedural grievances moot.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC), Petitioner herein, is before this Court seeking the following reliefs;

“a. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 and 22.07.2025 passed by State Information Commission (Respondent No.1), as being without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005;

b. Hold and declare that the petitioner (SPIO) was justified in denying disclosure of the information sought being exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005;

c. Stay the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 and 22.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1, during the pendency of this writ petition;

d. Pass such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. While impugning the Orders dated 17-06-2025 and 22- 07-2025, passed by the Sikkim Information Commission, Gangtok, Sikkim, Respondent No.1 herein, in Appeal No.3/SIC/2025, dated 14-05-2025 [Mr. Ashif Pradhan vs. State Public Information Officer (SPIO), Sikkim Public Service Commission, Gangtok, Sikkim], it is averred that the Respondent No.2 herein, had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “RTI Act”), dated 18-02-2025, before the Petitioner, State Public Information Officer (hereinafter, “SPIO”), SPSC, seeking certain information under the provisions of the RTI Act. The information sought inter alia pertained to making over to the Respondent No.2 the list of candidates who had cleared the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022, for recruitment to the posts of Accounts Officer, Under Secretary and Deputy Superintendent of Police, along with their Roll numbers and marks obtained by them. The Respondent No.2 had also sought the list of candidates who were Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in the same examination, the marks obtained by them and categories of disability. The Petitioner vide letter dated 25-03-2025 furnished some of the information sought to the Respondent No.2.

(i) The Respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the information furnished as the Petitioner had declined to provide all of the information sought for, filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, SPSC, on 02-04-2025, assailing the information provided by the Petitioner. The First Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties, ordered the Petitioner to furnish the relevant information, viz., to allow the Respondent No.2 inspection of the roll number and marks of the lone candidate who submitted written consent for disclosure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. It was further ordered that the marks of those candidates who denied consent under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act shall not be disclosed in accordance with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was also noted by the First Appellate Authority in the said order that, the Petitioner had informed the Respondent No.2 that the cut-off marks for the Mains Written Examination was 33%, which was duly acknowledged by the Respondent No.2.

(ii) Aggrieved by the Order of the First Appellate Authority, the Respondent No.2 was before the Second Appellate Authority, Sikkim Information Commission, vide Appeal dated 07-05-2025, impugning the order of the First Appellant Authority, on grounds that the information sought pertains to a public examination and does not infringe on the privacy of any individual nor did such information fall under the exemption of Section 8 or 9 of th