STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MD.SHAHJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent before this Court applied to CPIO of the petitioner State Bank of India, seeking information with respect to the marks obtained by him in the written departmental examination, Performance Appraisal Form(PAF) and interview for the promotional examination held on 5 th July, 2009 along with the marks of the last successful candidate. The Central Information Commission, vide impugned order dated 7th September, 2011, directed the petitioner to disclose the marks awarded to the respondent in the written examination, PAF and interview for the promotion examination held on 5th July, 2009 along with marks awarded to the last selected candidate in 2009 examination. The challenge in the present writ petition is confined to the extent the petitioner has been directed to disclose to the respondent, marks obtained by him in the interview and his ACR.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. 2013(6) SCALE 490 where the Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 7, inter alia, held as under:-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by the respondent is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e)(g) and (j) of RTI Act and that this aspect of the matter was not under consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra). The second contention of the learned counsel is that the disclosure of the ACR of the respondent would contravene the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) & (b) of Official Secrets Act. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the order passed by the Commission being a non-speaking order, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Commission for passing a speaking order. The learned counsel also points out that the whole issue related to disclosure of the ACR has now been referred to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court by virtue of an order dated 29.03.2012 passed in SLP(C) No. 15770 of 2009 which now stands converted into Civil Appeal No. 2872 of 2010 and, therefore the Court should await for the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. He also says that the issue has also been raised by the petitioner-bank in SLP(C) No. 5296 of 2009 and the said SLP has been admitted on 06.07.2012.