Arun Mishra JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. 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, 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 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 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 a........