TREESA IRISH Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law posed in this writ petition is as to whether valued answer sheets of an examination returned to a public authority by the examiner entrusted with the task of valuation, is information exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 after the results of the examination are published. The question arises in the following set of facts:

(2.) The petitioner is a postman who appeared for the written examination for selection to the post of last grade officials in the Kerala Circle of the Postal Department of the Government of India on 24-4-2005. When results were published, the petitioner was informed that no one qualified in the examination from the Ernakulam Division. The petitioner applied for her mark list for the examination, which was supplied to her only after she filed O.A. No. 741/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. From Ext P1 mark list, the petitioner learnt that she failed to obtain minimum marks in one of the three papers, she having scored only 37 marks for that paper. She scored 45 and 70 marks for papers I and II respectively. She therefore submitted Ext. P2 application before the 1st respondent - Central Public Information Officer of the Kerala Postal Circle, under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, for a copy of the evaluated answer paper of paper III of the examination, in which she was shown as failed. She remitted the required fee for the same. By Ext. P3 dated 8-11-2005, the 1st respondent rejected her request, on the ground that no public interest is involved in the case. The petitioner filed Ext. P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, which was rejected by Ext. P5 order dated 30-11- 2005, holding that disclosure of such nature will compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process and such disclosure does not justify the larger public interest. The petitioner filed Ext. P6 second appeal before the 3rd respondent-Central Information Commission, which was rejected by the Commission holding that such information is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act on the ground that the public authority is holding the information in fiduciary relationship and the information is purely a personal information, which has no relation to any public interest or activity. Aggrieve by those orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The petitioner contends that there is no fiduciary relationship between the authority conducting the examination and the examiner, who values the answer papers, and the finding to the contrary in Ext. P8 is on an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the expression "fiduciary relationship" occurring in Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through the meaning given to the expression in various text books and elucidation of the meaning of that expression by various courts, in support of that contention. According to the petitioner, since the evaluation of the answer papers is for selecting the best among the candidates appearing in the examination, the same is a public activity and the information sought for is not a personal information coming within the purview of Section 8(1)(j). It is further contended that absence of public interest simpliciter is not a ground for rejection of request for information under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act.