IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6079 of 2007
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : J.C. to G.A.
16/19.05.2010
It appears that despite service of notice, Respondent No. 3 has not
appeared at all and neither has the Respondent-State Information Commission
appeared. Rather, from the letter which has been received from the office of
the Information Commission, it is declared that the State Information
Commission is not interested to defend the impugned order which it had
passed.
2. Counsel for the Respondent-State, however, is present offering
assistance, for deciding the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ
application.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
4. The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the impugned
orders contained in Annexures-6, 6/1 and 6/2 dated 22.08.2007, 18.09.2007
and 10.10.2007 respectively passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in
Appeal No. 498 of 2007, whereby a direction has been given to the petitioner
to furnish the various informations sought for by the Respondent No. 3, vide
Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the application filed by him.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the
Information Commission is bad in law and is violative of the provisions of
Section 8(1)(G) of the Right to Information Act. Learned counsel explains that
vide Item Nos. 4 and 5, the Respondent No. 3 had sought information
regarding the names of the candidates who were selected for the post of
Lecturers and Professors, in response to the Advertisement No. 9/2006 dated
26.05.2007 and had also sought information regarding the names of the
members of the Interview Board.
6. Learned counsel submits that the information sought for by the
Respondent No. 3 cannot possibly be given. Learned counsel explains that
though the process for selection of the candidates who had applied against the
advertisement No. 9/2006 was initiated, but by a subsequent notification on
26.05.2007, the entire selection process which was initiated in respect of the
earlier advertisement, was cancelled. As such, no such selection of any
candidate was finally made and, therefore, the question of furnishing the
names of the selected candidates did not arise.
As per the information sought for regarding the names of the members
of the Interview Board, constitutes confidential information and the disclosure
of such confidential information have been exempted under the provisions of
Section 8(1)(G) of the Right to Information Act.
Referring to the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in
Appeal No. 875 of 2008 in the case of Meera Sinha & Ors. Vs. Public
Information Officer, learned counsel submits that the names of the members of
the Interview Board, cannot be allowed to be disclosed.
7. Counsel for the Respondent-State would argue on the other hand that
the directions to furnish the names of the members of the Interview Board
cannot possibly be assailed in view of the fact that the constitution of the
members depends upon various criteria including their educational
qualification, the expertise which they have acquired in the relevant field for
which they are supposed to conduct interviews of the candidates and these
informations cannot be claimed to be confidential information.
8. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that the
members of the Interview Board, as pointed out in the case under reference,
are those, who were appointed by the Medical Council of India and the
confidentiality regarding the names is needed to be maintained in order to
prevent the external sources to influence the members.
9. From the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are firstly, that the
selection process for which the advertisement was issued earlier in respect of
which the informations have been sought by the Respondent No. 3, has been
cancelled by the petitioner-J.P.S.C. As such, the informations sought for by the
Respondent No. 3 are of no relevance and uncalled for.
As regards the information regarding the names and identities of the
members of the Interview Board, the same cannot possibly be furnished in
view of the fact that confidentiality regarding the names and identities of the
members of the Interview Board needs to be preserved.
In the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra,
Assistant Director, Lok Seva Secretariate, vide Appeal No.
CIC/WP/A/06/00469, the Central Information Commission, while considering
the grievance of the complainant therein regarding furnishing of the information
relating to evaluated answer sheets, has held as follows:-
“… The identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person
associated with the process of examination, the concerned
authorities should ensure that the name and identity of the
examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the
process of examination is in no way disclosed so as to endanger
the life and physical safety of such person. If it is not possible to
do so in such case, the authority concerned may decline to
disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets (Annexure- A/1/G)”.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the
light of the discussions made above, the claim of the petitioner that the
information sought for in respect of the names of the members of the Interview
Board cannot furnished since it would violate the confidentiality, appears to be
a reasonable objection. The refusal to disclose the information related to Item
Nos. 4 and 5 raised by Respondent No. 3, on the ground that such
informations are redundant in view of the cancellation of entire selection
process earlier advertised for, is also reasonable and legitimate.
11. From the impugned orders, I find that the Information Commission has
not considered the above objections of the petitioner in proper perspective and
has not applied its judicial mind to the issues involved.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the
State Information Commission, are hereby quashed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Manish