Marks awarded to all the general category candidates in the interview for a post was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - PIO: marks are shown on individual basis to the respective candidates - CIC: provide the aggregate marks obtained including the cut off marks

Marks awarded to all the general category candidates in the interview for the post of Assistant Manager, Law was denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.   - PIO: marks are shown on individual basis to the candidates as per their policy decision - CIC: authority has to change its mind sets and realise that the present era is of transparency and previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place in larger public interest; provide the aggregate marks obtained by the selected candidates of general category including the cut off marks

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Rahul Gupta, submitted RTI application dated November 27, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding marks obtained by him in the interview/written examination for the post of Assistant Manager, Law bearing roll no. 1922073069 held between 8.4.2013 to 13.4.2013 etc., through a total of 8 points.

2. Vide reply dated December 6, 2013 CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant in which he had denied information on point 2 u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 and furnished information on rest of the points. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply on point 2, the appellant preferred an appeal dated December 23, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been provided partial information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated January 7, 2014 FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that on point no. 2 of his RTI application he had sought the details/list of marks awarded in written examination and in interview to all the general category candidates called for the interview for the above mentioned exam but was denied the information on the ground of its being personal information of the third party and thus exempt u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005. He contended that it was not the personal information of the third party as the same kind of information was being disclosed by other examination conducting public authorities. He added that marks obtained (written and interview) by the selected candidates of general category should be provided to him as it would help him to analyse his position in the examination. He stated that final result of said examination in particular was not published on the bank’s website.

5. The respondents submitted that the selected candidates were informed through post and their result was also published on their website and kept available for more than 3 months on the same. They do not give the marks of any candidate to others as they consider it to be the personal information of the said candidate. Individual candidate could find his/her marks along with the cutoff marks with the help of personal login id and password provided by the Bank. They reiterated that they only show marks on individual basis to the candidates as per their policy decision. Even otherwise the information sought was voluminous as many as 500 candidates were selected in this exam/interview.

6. The Commission observes that the public authority has to change its mind sets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of information and should realise that the present era is of transparency and previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place in larger public interest.

7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondents to provide aggregate marks obtained by the selected candidates of general category in the above mentioned examination including cut off marks within 10 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Rahul Gupta v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000564