Case Law Details
Issue – The Bihar Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission) published advertisement No. 6 of 2000 dated 10th May, 2000 in the local papers of the State of Bihar declaring its intention to fill up the posts of ‘State Examiner of Questioned Documents’, in Police Laboratory in Crime Investigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The advertisement, inter alia, stated that written examination would be held if adequate number of applications were received. As very limited number of applications were received, the Commission, in terms of the advertisement, decided against the holding of written examination. It exercised the option to select the candidates for appointment to the said post on the basis of viva voce test alone. The Commission completed the process of selection and recommended the panel of selected candidates to the State of Bihar.
One Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, respondent No.1 herein, claiming to be a public spirited citizen, filed an application before the Commission(appellant herein) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) on 16th December, 2008 seeking information in relation to eight queries. These queries concerned the interview which was held on 30thSeptember, 2002 and 1st October, 2002 by the Commission with regard to the above advertisement. These queries, inter alia, related to providing the names, designation and addresses of the subject experts present in the Interview Board, names and addresses of the candidates who appeared, the interview statement with certified photocopies of the marks of all the candidates, criteria for selection of the candidates, tabulated statement containing average marks allotted to the candidates from matriculation to M.Sc. during the selection process with the signatures of the members/officers and certified copy of the merit list.
Held by SC– The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the Interview Board to harm and, on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose. Furthermore, the view of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that element of bia scan be traced and would be crystallized only if the names and addresses of the examiners/interviewers are furnished is without any substance. The element of bias can hardly be co-related with the disclosure of the names and addresses of the interviewers. Bias is not a ground which can be considered for or against a party making an application to which exemption under Section 8 is pleaded as a defence. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. Suffice it to note that the reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity with the principles stated by this Court in the CBSE case (supra). The transparency that is expected to be maintained in such process would not take within its ambit the disclosure of the information called for under query No.1 of the application. Transparency in such cases is relatable to the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking. Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act.
For the reasons afore-stated, we accept the present appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and hold that the Commission is not bound to disclose the information asked for by the applicant under Query No.1 of the application.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
A very serious observation from Suprme Court indicating urgent need to imporve character and moral of peole:
It is unfortunate and very serious issue when we find observations or even apprehension of the honorable Supreme Court that there is possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from selection boards members/ examiners ..
That it is likely to expose the members of the Interview Board to harm.
The Suprme court was considering matter of Bihar Public Service Commission. This means persons who were interviewed have taken examination for BPSC for various administrative and other services in Bihar. The applicants are supposed to have good moral character – at least certified by some authority at some time. The people concerned are trying to get a senior and responsible post. In such cases expression of such doubts by the Supreme Court is really very serious.
This shows lack of confidence of the Supreme Court judges about charcter, moral and quality of candidates who appeared in examination / or interview etc. A failed candidate of such important examination or interview can take revenge- then what sort of character we can expect if he is selected and is in position to exert power.
With due respect I feel that honorable Supreme Court could have used some other words instead of expressing such serious concern which put a big question mark on character of failed candidates and in fact it put a question mark on evaluation system. Merely becasue of failure, an eligible candidate can be a reason of endengering interviewers life is really very unfortunate.
This apprehension shows that there is urgent need for taking steps to improve moral and character of people, avoid further detoriation. Criminals in power in any manner should not be tolerated.
That is why it is expected from the people concern IN HIGH OFFICES to be fair & FRANK, ACCOUNTABLE and upright in their dealings.
THIS IS WHY THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS WANTS AND ARE UNITED (THOUGH NOT IN PEOPLE’S WELFARE MATTERS) TO GET OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF THE RTI ACT.
HOPE NOW PEOPLE MUST UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF RTI ACT.