KERALA PUB.SERVICE COMMN. vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMN.

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 J U D G M E N T M.Y. EQBAL, J. JUDGMENT Leave granted. 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, 1 Page 1 tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet.

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 JUDGMENT 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 2 Page 2 Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Allahabad. 6. So far as the information sought for by the

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 JUDGMENT 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 3 Page 3

JUDGMENT 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 4 Page 4

8. We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court on the question of disclosure of JUDGMENT 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 principal- agent relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a Principal 5 Page 5 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

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. JUDGMENT 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. 6 Page 6 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

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 JUDGMENT 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 7 Page 7 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

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. JUDGMENT …………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal) …………………………….J. (Arun Mishra) New Delhi February 4, 2016 8 Page 8