The RTI Act's personal information exemption does not apply where public interest justifies disclosure of examination marks for transparency and fairness.

Heard On : 09.07.2025 Order On : 09.07.2025 Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated June 10, 2025 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner on the petitioner’s second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 .

2. Following an advertisement vide Employment Notification dated December 5, 2013, inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Executive Assistant in the office of the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar, the petitioner applied for being appointed to the post.

3. The petitioner participated in the examination conducted for such purpose and successfully qualified in the written examination, whereafter, the petitioner appeared for interview.

4. Merit list of selected candidates was published on the relevant website. The petitioner found his name appearing in the waiting list under the Category- OBC(A). The merit list published did not disclose the marks obtained by the candidates whose names had been published therein.

5. The petitioner therefore submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the qualification and the marks obtained by the selected candidates in both written as well as viva voce examination. The State Public Information Officer did not provide such information. The petitioner therefore preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also did not provide the information sought.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Information Commission by way of a second appeal. The second appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by the order dated June 10, 2025 holding as follows:-

“6. It is seen that the appellant wrote Gram Panchayat Executive Assistant Recruitment Examination, 2017 but did not qualify. His name is listed in the Waiting List at number one in OBC (A) category. The appellant wants to know qualification and academic score of selected candidates. The Commission observed that the appellant is entitled to know the list of selected candidates which he already knows. The rest of the information sought by him is personal information which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) RTI Act. The case is closed.”

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

8. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the examination wherein the petitioner has participated is a public examination, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to know the marks of the candidates whose names appeared in the merit list as selected candidates. 9. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments;

i. Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &

Ors. reported at (2011) 8 SCC 497 ii. K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported at (2013) 14 SCC 794 iii. State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon Municipal Council , (2003) 9 SCC 731 para- 37. 10. It has been submitted by Mr. Banerjee relying on the aforesaid judgments for the purpose of transparency and good governance, it was necessary for the information authorities to provide the information sought for by the petitioner.

11. Mr. Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 6 i.e. the West Bengal Information Commission has submitted that larger public interest is not involved in the matter inasmuch as only one candidate has sought for information of others.

12. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal , reported at (2020) 5 SCC 481 and submitted that only in cases of larger public interest personal information relating to others can be supplied.

13. Learned Advocate appearing for the resp