Case: Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gourhari Kamila

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 12.12.2011 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the letters patent appeals filed by appellantUnion Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were dismissed and the directions given by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) to the Commission to provide information to the respondents about the candidates who had competed with them in the selection was upheld.For the sake of convenience we may notice the facts from the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16870/2012.In response to advertisement No.13 issued by the Commission, the respondent applied for recruitment as Deputy Director (Ballistics) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ballistic Division under the Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs. After the selection process was completed, the respondent submitted application dated 17.3.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act) for supply of followingWhat are the criteria for the short listing of theHow many candidates have been called for theKindly provide the names of all the short listed candidates called for interview held on 16.3.2010.How many years of experience in the relevant field (Analytical methods and research in the field of Ballistics) mentioned in the advertisement have been considered for the short listing of the candidates for the interview held for the date on 16.3.Kindly provide the certified xerox copies of experience certificates of all the candidates called for the interview on 16.3.2010 who have claimed the experience in the relevant field as per records available in the UPSC and as mentioned by the candidates at Sl.No.10(B) ofof their application who are called for the interview held on 16.3.2010.Kindly provide the certified xerox copies of M.Sc. and B.Sc. degree certificates of all the candidates as per records available in the UPSC who are called for the interview held on 16.3.2010.Kindly provide the certified xerox copies of UGC guidelines and the Govt. of India Gazette notification regarding whether the Degree in M.Sc. Applied Mathematics and the Degree in M.Sc. Mathematics are equivalent or not as per available records in the UPSC.Kindly provide the certified xerox copies of UGC guidelines and the Govt. of India Gazette notification regarding whether the Degree in M.Sc. Applied Physics and the Degree in M.Sc. Physics are equivalent or not as per available records in the UPSC.Deputy Secretary and Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Commission send reply dated 16.4.2010, the relevant portions of which are reproduced1 to 4: As the case is subjudice in Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), Hyderabad, hence the information cannot be5 & 6: Photocopy of experience certificate and M.Sc. and B.Sc. degree certificates of called candidates cannot be given as the candidates have given their personal details to the Commission is a fiduciary relationship with expectation that this information will not be disclosed to others. Hence, disclosures of personal information of candidates held in a fiduciary capacity is exempted from disclosures under Section 8(l)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further disclosures of these details to another candidate is not likely to serve any public interest of activity and hence is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the said7 & 8: For copy of UGC Guidelines and Gazette notification, you may contact University Grant Commission, directly, as UGC is a distinct public authority.The respondent challenged the aforesaid communication by filing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, which was partly allowed by the Appellate Authority and a direction was given to the Commission to provide information sought by the respondent under point Nos. 1 to 3 of the application.The order of the Appellate Authority did not satisfy the respondent, who filed further appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act. The CIC allowed the appeal and directed the Commission to supply the remaining information and the documents.The Commission challenged the order of the CIC in Writ Petition Civil No. 3365/2011, which was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by making a cryptic observation that he is not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIC because the information asked for cannot be treated as exempted under Section 8(1)(e), (g) or (j) of the Act. The letters patent appeal filed by the Commission was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Reasoning:
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.