IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1508 of 2010 ----------- Appeal against the Order dated 28-7-2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15814/2009. ------------- Manoj Kumar,Advocate, Son of Shri Suresh Singh, C/O Late Ram Kishun Guru, R/O Mohalla- Lala Babu Road, New Godown,P.O.+ P.S. Gaya (Kotwali) , Distt. Gaya-823002........... Appellant Versus 1. The Joint Registrar(Judl.)-Cum - Public Information officer, High Court of Judicature at Patna................................Petitioner/Respondent 2. The State Information Commission through its Commissioner, 4th Floor, Information Building, Bailey Road, Patna. 3 The Commissioner, State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Information Building, Bailey Road, Patna. 4 The Deputy Secretary-cum- Joint Registrar, State Information Commission, Information Building, BaileyRoad,Patna................ Respondents ----------- 5 23-8-2011 Against the order of Commissioner, State Information Commission, Bihar dated 28-7-2009 passed in Case No. 13745 of 2008-09, the Joint Registrar ( Judl.)-Cum-Information Officer, Patna High Court preferred writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15814 of 2009. The said writ petition has been 2 allowed by the order under appeal dated 28-7-2010. This judgment is now reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 1960. Initially the appellant who is an advocate wanted marks obtained by all the candidates who took the examination conducted in the year 2002 for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge from the Bar. He also wanted disclosure of name of the agency which had conducted the examination at the behest of Patna High Court. So far as marks are concerned, subsequently the appellant confined his prayer to furnishing of marks obtained by him in the said examination. So far as disclosure of name of the agency which conducted the examination is concerned, the learned single Judge has dealt with the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act,2005 in extenso and after considering all the 3 relevant aspects of the matter, has held that it was not obligatory for the High Court to disclose the name of the agency, as no real interest of public in general required such disclosure rather it was in the interest of maintaining purity and confidentiality of the examination system that the name of the agency be not disclosed. We fully agree with the views of the writ court noticed above. So far as the demand of the appellant for his marks in the written examination is concerned, since the mark-sheet simply could not be searched out, we took the view that the High Court should make further efforts to locate the marks of written examination received from the agency so that marks obtained by the appellant may be supplied to him. We accordingly, directed the Registrar General by our order dated 21-7-2011 to hold an enquiry with a view to find out the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination interview and 4 the final result showing aggregate marks obtained by the successful candidates and others, who participated in the interview. The report of the Registrar General has been received in a sealed envelop. It discloses that some materials, such as copies of marks of written test as well as of interview, given to 28 candidates who were qualified for interview and their total marks were found in a sealed envelop kept in an almirah. This could be located after extensive search because the materials were not kept in the files maintained in the department. We have allowed counsel for the parties to peruse the report as well as photo-copies of merit list showing marks obtained by 28 candidates, called for interview, in the written test, interview and in the aggregate. Since the marks obtained by all the candidates sent by the agency have not been located till date, it is not possible for us to give any 5 direction for supply of marks obtained by the appellant in the written examination. This is only on account of non-availability of the information requested for in spite of making all efforts to unearth the information. However, the marks obtained by 28 candidates which are now available on the records of this case may be made available to the appellant if he so desire, by the Public Information Officer, High Court within one week of his approaching the Joint Registrar (Judicial )Cum- Public Information Officer of the High Court. Let the report of the Registrar General be kept on record. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)