Allahabad High Court: Marks in Public Recruitment Exams Not Confidential Under RTI, Can Be Disclosed

The Allahabad High Court in Union of India through G.M. Diesel Locomotive and Another v. Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Others has held that marks obtained by candidates in public recruitment examinations cannot be treated as confidential information. The Court ruled that such details can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 without requiring consent from the concerned candidate.

The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, who observed that when a candidate seeks information regarding marks obtained in an examination in which they also participated, such information does not fall within the category of private or confidential information protected under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

The Court stated:

“Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8.”

However, the Court clarified that if an outsider who did not participate in the examination seeks such information, the concerned department may rely on confidentiality and privacy considerations to refuse disclosure.

The case arose from a recruitment examination conducted by the Indian Railways for the post of Legal Assistant. In 2008, a candidate named Santosh Kumar filed an application under the RTI Act seeking information about the marks awarded to three candidates, including himself, and also requested their marksheets.

Initially, the authorities did not provide the marks but allowed the applicant to inspect the answer sheets. Dissatisfied with this response, the applicant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission directed the Railway authorities to provide photocopies of the answer sheets.

The General Manager of Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, challenged this direction and sought a review. The review was rejected, with the Commission observing that the Railways, being a public authority, was obligated to provide the information. Consequently, the matter reached the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition.

While examining the matter, the Court analysed the provisions of the RTI Act relating to privacy and disclosure of information. It noted that personal information unrelated to public activity or public interest cannot ordinarily be disclosed, as it may result in unnecessary invasion of privacy.

The bench also examined Section 11 of the RTI Act, which deals with information relating to third parties. It observed that the provision already includes safeguards, such as issuing notice to the concerned third party before disclosure where necessary.

The Court explained that the concept of public interest under the RTI Act includes matters affecting society, groups of individuals, or the public at large. It emphasised that transparency in public examinations serves a legitimate public interest because such examinations are part of public recruitment processes.

The bench held that marks awarded in public recruitment examinations are directly connected to a public activity and therefore cannot be considered private information. Consequently, disclosing such marks does not amount to invasion of privacy.

At the same time, the Court drew a distinction between disclosure of marks and disclosure of answer sheets. It observed that providing photocopies of answer sheets could reveal sensitive details such as signatures and identities of examiners, which may not be appropriate for public disclosure.

Therefore, while marks can be disclosed, the Court held that authorities cannot always be compelled to provide photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates. Instead, allowing inspection of the answer sheets may sufficiently satisfy the information request.

The Court also clarified that a candidate has a clear right to obtain photocopies of their own answer sheet if requested.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that transparency in public recruitment examinations is consistent with the objective of the RTI Act. It held that marks obtained in such examinations should ordinarily be disclosed when sought by another candidate who participated in the same examination.