Marks of Candidates in Public Recruitment Process Not Exempt Under 'Privacy' Clause of RTI Act: Bombay High Court - 2025-07-04

Bombay High Court Upholds Transparency, Orders Disclosure of Marks in Public Recruitment

Mumbai: In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of transparency and accountability in public employment, the Bombay High Court has declared that marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process cannot be withheld under the privacy exemption of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that disclosing such marks serves a larger public interest by boosting confidence in the selection process and dispelling doubts about potential wrongdoing. The court directed the Pune District Court to furnish an unsuccessful candidate with the marks of all selected candidates for the post of Junior Clerk.

Case Background

The case was brought by Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar , who participated in the 2018 recruitment process for Junior Clerks in the Pune District Court. After being interviewed but not finding his name on the final selection list, he filed an RTI application seeking: 1. His own marks in the screening test, typing tests, and interview. 2. The marks of the top 363 candidates. 3. The criteria used for selection.

His request was rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and subsequently by the First and Second Appellate Authorities, who cited confidentiality under Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules, 2009.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Stance: Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, representing the petitioner, argued that marks obtained in a public selection cannot be deemed confidential. He emphasized the need for transparency, allowing the petitioner to assess his performance relative to others. He pointed to the Wardha District Court, which had transparently published the marks of all candidates for a similar recruitment, as a model to be followed.

Respondents' Defence: Mr. Rajesh S. Datar, counsel for the Pune District Court, defended the denial of information. He contended that the marks of other candidates constituted "personal information" exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it would cause an "unwarranted invasion of privacy." He also invoked Section 11 (third-party information) and Rule 13(e) (confidentiality of examinations) to justify the decision.

Court's Analysis: Transparency Over Privacy

The High Court meticulously dismantled the respondents' arguments, clarifying the scope of exemptions under the RTI Act in the context of public recruitment.

On Privacy under Section 8(1)(j): The Bench ruled that the recruitment process is a "public activity" and that the marks awarded are intrinsically linked to this activity. The judgment noted:

"Since the selection process for Junior Clerks... was essentially a public activity... we do not think that the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates participating in such a process would amount to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest."

The court further clarified that only an "unwarranted" invasion of privacy is protected, and in this case, the larger public interest in transparency and accountability justified the disclosure.

On Confidentiality of Examinations (Rule 13(e)): The court interpreted Rule 13(e) narrowly, stating its purpose is to protect the integrity of an ongoing or future examination (e.g., names of examiners, paper setters). It does not apply to the disclosure of marks after the examination is concluded. The Bench observed:

"Once the examination is concluded and a candidate wishes to know the marks obtained by him or by other candidates in such examination, we do not think that such information will affect the confidentiality of the examination already held."

Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Aditya Bandopadhyay , the court reiterated that transparency fosters accountability and that "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Final Verdict

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. While agreeing that the petitioner could not seek the names of interviewers or additional details on selection criteria already in the public domain, it set aside the authorities' orders denying the disclosure of marks.

The Bench directed the respondents to furnish Shri Kalmankar with the marks obtained by candidates ranked 1 to 363 in the screening, typing, and interview tests within six weeks. The ruling sets a crucial precedent, ensuring that public bodies cannot use privacy or confidentiality as a blanket excuse to deny information vital to maintaining public trust in recruitment processes.