The Bombay High Court on Monday said the recruitment process for public posts must be transparent. It further observed that marks obtained by candidates were not private information and their disclosure would not amount to any unwarranted invasion of privacy.

A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain said withholding such information allows doubts to linger, which is not healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes.

The bench passed the order on a plea filed by one Onkar Kalmankar, seeking details of the marks obtained by candidates who appeared for the tests in 2018 for the post of junior clerk in the Pune district court. Kalmankar had appeared for the tests but was not selected.

The court directed the concerned authorities to furnish the petitioner with the marks obtained by the selected candidates in the written test, Marathi and English typing test and interview within six weeks.

The bench, in its order, said the case pertains to the selection process for the post of junior clerk in the district court in Pune, for which applications were invited through a public advertisement. “In that sense, this public process must be transparent. The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest,” the court noted.

It observed that provisions of the Right To Information (RTI) Act have exempted only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. “Given that such selection processes must be transparent and above board, it would be in the public interest to disclose such information rather than withhold it and allow any doubts about the process to linger,” the court further noted.

The bench also said in the context of public examination for selection to a public post, it was doubtful whether disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any “unwarranted invasion of privacy”.

Kalmankar had participated in the recruitment process and passed the written and typing tests but did not clear the interview. He had initially sought information under the RTI Act from the public information officer and the state information commissioner, but his request was denied, following which he approached the high court.