Case: Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gourhari Kamila

body. This Court has explained the role of an examining body in regard to the process of holding examination in the context of examining whether it amounts to "service" to a consumer, in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483 in the following manner: "11. ... The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. 12. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its services to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hire or avail of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-a-vis other examinees. The process is not, therefore, availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination. 13. ... The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer scripts, or furnishing of marksheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer." It cannot therefore be said that the examining body is in a fiduciary relationship either with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer books are evaluated by the examining body. We may next consider whether an examining body would be entitled to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, even assuming that it is in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. That section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. This would only mean that even if the relationship is fiduciary, the exemption would operate in regard to giving access to the information held in fiduciary relationship, to third parties. There is no question of the fiduciary withholding information relating to the beneficiary, from the beneficiary himself. One of the duties of the fiduciary is to make thorough disclosure of all the relevant facts of all transactions between them to the beneficiary, in a fiduciary relationship. By that logic, the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, will be liable to make a full disclosure of the evaluated answer books to the examinee and at the same time, owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer books to anyone else. If A entrusts a document or an article to B to be processed, on completion of processing, B is not expected to give the document or article to anyone else but is bound to give the same to A who entrusted the document or article to B for processing. Therefore, if a relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the answer book, Section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third party and will not operate as a bar for the very person who wrote the answer book, seeking inspection or disclosure of it." (emphasis supplied) 13. By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, we hold that the CIC committed a serious illegality by directing the Commission to disclose the information sought by the respondent at point Nos. 4 and 5 and the High Court committed an error by approving his order. 14. We may add that neither the CIC nor the High Court came to the conclusion that disclosure of the information relating to other candidates was necessary in larger public interest. Therefore, the present case is not covered by the exception carved out in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. 15. Before concluding, we may observe that in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16871/2012, respondent Naresh Kumar was a candidate for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) in Forensic Science Laboratory. He asked information about other three candidates who had competed with him and the nature of interviews. The appeal filed by him under Section 19(3) was allowed by the CIC without assigning reasons. The writ petition filed by the Commission was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by recording a cryptic order and the letters patent appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16872/2012, respondent Udaya Kumara was a candidate for the post of Deputy Government counsel in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice. He sought information regarding all other candidates and orders similar to those passed in the other two cases were passed in his case as well. In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16873/2012, respondent N. Sugathan (retired Biologist) sough information on various issues including the candidates recommended for appointment on the posts of Senior Instructor (Fishery Biology) and Senior Instructor (Craft and Gear) in the Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical and Engineering Training. In his case also, similar orders were passed by the CIC, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, what we have observed qua the case of Gourhari Kamila would equally apply to the remaining three cases.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. Before concluding, we may observe that in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16871/2012, respondent Naresh Kumar was a candidate for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) in Forensic Science Laboratory. He asked information about other three candidates who had competed with him and the nature of interviews. The appeal filed by him under Section 19(3) was allowed by the CIC without assigning reasons. The writ petition filed by the Commission was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by recording a cryptic order and the letters patent appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16872/2012, respondent Udaya Kumara was a candidate for the post of Deputy Government counsel in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice. He sought information regarding all other candidates and orders similar to those passed in the other two cases were passed in his case as well. In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.16873/2012, respondent N. Sugathan (retired Biologist) sough information on various issues including the candidates recommended for appointment on the posts of Senior Instructor (Fishery Biology) and Senior Instructor (Craft and Gear) in the Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical and Engineering Training. In his case also, similar orders were passed by the CIC, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, what we have observed qua the case of Gourhari Kamila would equally apply to the remaining three cases.