In the present case the request of the information
seeker about the information of his answer sheets and
details of the interview marks can be and should be
provided to him. It is not something which a public
authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even
disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the
candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given
marks according to their performance in the exam. This
practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive
environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for
the competitive exams, but, the request of the information
seeker about the details of the person who had
examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be
provided to the information seeker as the relationship
between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and
the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The
Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they
will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and
impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that
they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for
doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the
examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may
try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job
properly. This may, further, create a situation where the
potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in
the same state or in the same level will try to contact the
disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means
in the potential exam.
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.823-854 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 15919- 15950 of 2011)
Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. …..Appellants
Versus
The State Information Commission & Anr. ….Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5433 of 2014)
Public Service Commission U.P. …..Appellant
Versus
Raghvendra Singh .. Respondent
Dated;February 4, 2016
2. In these two appeals the short question which needs
consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the
Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held
that the respondents are entitled not only to get information
with regard to the scan copies of their answer sheet,
tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also
entitled to know the names of the examiners who have
evaluated the answer sheet.
3. The information sought for by the respondents were
denied by the State Public Information Officer and the
Appellate Authority. However, the State Information
Commission allowed the second appeal and held that there
is no fiduciary relationship in case of answer scripts.
Further, the interview marks cannot be considered as
personal information, since the public authority had already
decided to publish them.
4. Both the High Courts of Kerala and Allahabad have
taken the view, following the earlier decisions of this Court
that no fiduciary relationship exists between the appellants
and the respondents and, therefore, the information sought
for have to be supplied to them.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the impugned judgments passed by the
2Page 3
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
and Allahabad.
6. So far as the information sought for by the
respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of
his answer-sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation
sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the
view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the
disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of
law and the same is fully justified. However, the view of the
Kerala High Court is that the information seekers are also
entitled to get the disclosure of names of examiners who
have evaluated the answer-sheet.
7. The view taken by the Kerala High Court holding that no
fiduciary relationship exists between the University and the
Commission and the examiners appointed by them cannot
be sustained in law. The Kerala High Court while observing
held:-
“16.What, if any , is the fiduciary relationship of
the PSC qua the examinees? Performance audit
of constitutional institutions would only
3Page 4
strengthen the confidence of the citizenry in
such institutions. The PSC is a constitutional
institution. To stand above board, is one of its
own prime requirements. There is nothing that
should deter disclosure of the contents of the
materials that the examinees provide as part of
their performance in the competition for being
selected to public service. The confidence that
may be reposed by the examinees in the
institution of the PSC does not inspire the
acceptability of a fiduciary relationship that
should kindle the exclusion of information in
relation to the evalution or other details relating
to the examination. Once the evaluation is over
and results are declared, no more secrecy is
called for. Dissemination of such information
would only add to the credibility of the PSC, in
the constitutional conspectus in which it is
placed. A particular examinee would therefore
be entitled to access to information in relation to
that person’s answer scripts. As regards others,
information in relation to answer scripts may fall
within the pale of “third party information” in
terms of section 11 of the RTI Act. This only
means that such information cannot be
accessed except in conformity with the
provisions contained in section 11. It does not,
in any manner, provide for any immunity from
access.
17. We shall now examine the next contention
of PSC that there is a fiduciary relationship
between it and the examiners and as a
consequence, it is eligible to claim protection
from disclosure, except with the sanction of the
competent authority, as regards the identity of
the examiners as also the materials that were
subjected to the examination. We have already
approved TREESA and the different precedents
and commentaries relied on therein as regards
the concept of fiduciary relationship. We are in
full agreement with the law laid by the Division
Bench of this Court in Centre of Earth Science
4Page 5
Studies (supra), that S.8 (1)(e) deals with
information available with the person in his
fiduciary relationship with another; that
information under this head is nothing but
information in trust, which, but for the
relationship would not have been conveyed or
known to the person concerned. What is it that
the PSC holds in trust for the examiners?
Nothing. At the best, it could be pointed out
that the identity of the examiners has to be
insulated from public gaze, having regard to
issues relatable to vulnerability and exposure to
corruption if the identities of the examiners are
disclosed in advance. But, at any rate, such
issues would go to oblivion after the conclusion
of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the
publication of the results. Therefore, it would
not be in public interest to hold that there could
be a continued secrecy even as regards the
identity of the examiners. Access to such
information, including as to the identity of the
examiners, after the examination and evaluation
process are over, cannot be shied off under any
law or avowed principle of privacy.”
8. We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by
the Kerala High Court on the question of disclosure of
names of the examiners.
9. In the present case, the PSC has taken upon itself in
appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers
and as such, the PSC and examiners stand in a principalagent
relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a Principal
5Page 6
has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to
the Examiners. Consequently, Examiners in the position of
agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the
instructions given by the PSC. As a result, a fiduciary
relationship is established between the PSC and the
Examiners. Therefore, any information shared between
them is not liable to be disclosed. Furthermore, the
information seeker has no role to play in this and we don’t
see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the
public at large. We would like to point out that the
disclosure of the identity of Examiners is in the least
interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal
the examiner’s identity will give rise to dire consequences.
Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner’s
identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest.
Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the
Kerala High Court with respect to the second question.
6Page 7
10. In the present case the request of the information
seeker about the information of his answer sheets and
details of the interview marks can be and should be
provided to him. It is not something which a public
authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even
disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the
candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given
marks according to their performance in the exam. This
practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive
environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for
the competitive exams, but, the request of the information
seeker about the details of the person who had
examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be
provided to the information seeker as the relationship
between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and
the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The
Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they
will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and
impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that
they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for
doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the
examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may
try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job
properly. This may, further, create a situation where the
potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in
the same state or in the same level will try to contact the
disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means
in the potential exam.
11. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and
modify the judgment only to the extent that the
respondents-applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of
names of the examiners as sought for by them.
…………………………….J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
…………………………….J.
(Arun Mishra)
New Delhi
February 4, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment