Can the law treat the whole as public but its parts as private? That question has come to the forefront following the Manipur Public Service Commission’s (MPSC) refusal to disclose the written examination and interview/personality test marks of candidates selected in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2022, even though it has already published the names, roll numbers, categories, ranks, and total marks of those very candidates.
The issue arose after an RTI application filed by an Imphal Times journalist sought a certified statement showing the written examination marks, interview/personality test marks, and total marks secured by candidates included in the final merit list. The Commission, however, declined to disclose the component-wise marks, invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground that the information constituted “personal information.” The First Appellate Authority subsequently upheld the decision.
The recruitment process has already concluded, with the Government issuing appointment orders to the selected candidates. The Commission had also published the names, roll numbers, categories, ranks, and total marks of the selected candidates along with the final result.
Against this backdrop, the Commission’s decision has raised an important legal question concerning transparency in public recruitment: Can the written examination and interview/personality test marks that together constitute a candidate’s already published total score be withheld as “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?
The information sought under the RTI application was confined to the breakup of the total marks already published by the Commission. It did not seek any additional category of information beyond the written examination marks and interview/personality test marks that together constitute the published total score.
Also Read : Manipur HC quashes MPSC – 2016 main examination; directs CBI to investigate
Disclosure of the component-wise marks would enable verification of the relative weight assigned to the written examination and the interview/personality test, thereby promoting transparency and public confidence in the recruitment process.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts the disclosure of personal information where such disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, or where it would amount to an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy, unless the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.
However, neither the State Public Information Officer nor the First Appellate Authority explained how disclosure of the written examination marks and interview/personality test marks would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy once the Commission had already placed the total marks of the selected candidates in the public domain. Both authorities invoked Section 8(1)(j) without explaining how disclosure of the component-wise marks satisfied the statutory requirements of the exemption.
The matter assumes significance because the selection relates to appointments to public services through a constitutional recruitment body. Recruitment conducted by public authorities is expected to maintain the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and public accountability, particularly where merit determines selection to government service.
The dispute has gained added significance following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Public Information Officer & Registrar & Anr. v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr., which upheld the disclosure of candidates’ marks sought under the RTI Act in a public recruitment examination. The Court observed that even if such marks are considered personal information, they should nevertheless be disclosed in the larger public interest to ensure transparency in government recruitment.
The Supreme Court observed “We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process.”
The Court further held that seeking the marks of other candidates in a public competitive recruitment process does not amount to an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It also emphasized that recruitment processes must be conducted in a transparent and fair manner to maintain public confidence and eliminate lingering doubts about institutional favouritism or malpractice.
The judgment has since emerged as an important precedent on the disclosure of candidates’ marks in public recruitment under the RTI Act. In many recruitment processes conducted in Manipur, recruiting authorities publish only the total marks of selected candidates while withholding the written examination and interview/personality test marks.
The outcome of the present dispute may therefore have wider implications for transparency in public recruitment in the State, particularly in determining whether such component-wise marks may continue to be withheld under the RTI Act after the publication of final recruitment results.
