D.G.R. Patnaik, J.@mdashIt appears that despite service of notice, Respondent No. 3 has not appeared at all and neither has the Respondent-
State Information Commission appeared. Rather, from the letter which has been received from the office of the Information Commission, it is
declared that the State Information Commission is not interested to defend the impugned order which it had passed.
2. Counsel for the Respondent-State, however, is present offering assistance, for deciding the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ application.
3. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the State.
4. The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the impugned orders contained in Annexures-6, 6/1 and 6/2 dated 22.08.2007,
18.09.2007 and 10.10.2007 respectively passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in Appeal No. 498 of 2007, whereby a direction has
been given to the petitioner to furnish the various informations sought for by the Respondent No. 3, vide Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the application filed
by him.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Information Commission is bad in law and is violative of the provisions of
Section 8(1)(G) of the Right to Information Act. Learned Counsel explains that vide Item Nos. 4 and 5, the Respondent No. 3 had sought
information regarding the names of the candidates who were selected for the post of Lecturers and Professors, in response to the Advertisement
No. 9/2006 dated 26.05.2007 and had also sought information regarding the names of the members of the Interview Board.
6. Learned Counsel submits that the information sought for by the Respondent No. 3 cannot possibly be given. Learned Counsel explains that
though the process for selection of the candidates who had applied against the advertisement No. 9/2006 was initiated, but by a subsequent
notification on 26.05.2007, the entire selection process which was initiated in respect of the earlier advertisement, was cancelled. As such, no such
selection of any candidate was finally made and, therefore, the question of furnishing the names of the selected candidates did not arise.
As per the information sought for regarding the names of the members of the Interview Board, constitutes confidential information and the
disclosure of such confidential information have been exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(G) of the Right to Information Act.
Referring to the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner in Appeal No. 875 of 2008 in the case of Meera Sinha and Ors. v. Public
Information Officer, Learned Counsel submits that the names of the members of the Interview Board, cannot be allowed to be disclosed.
7. Counsel for the Respondent-State would argue on the other hand that the directions to furnish the names of the members of the Interview Board
cannot possibly be assailed in view of the fact that the constitution of the members depends upon various criteria including their educational
qualification, the expertise which they have acquired in the relevant field for which they are supposed to conduct interviews of the candidates and
these informations cannot be claimed to be confidential information.
8. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that the members of the Interview Board, as pointed out in the case under reference,
are those, who were appointed by the Medical Council of India and the confidentiality regarding the names is needed to be maintained in order to
prevent the external sources to influence the members.
9. From the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are firstly, that the selection process for which the advertisement was issued earlier in respect
of which the informations have been sought by the Respondent No. 3, has been cancelled by the petitioner-J.P.S.C. As such, the informations
sought for by the Respondent No. 3 are of no relevance and uncalled for.
As regards the information regarding the names and identities of the members of the Interview Board, the same cannot possibly be furnished in
view of the fact that confidentiality regarding the names and identities of the members of the Interview Board needs to be preserved.
In the case ofRakesh Kumar Singh and Ors. v. Harish Chandra, Assistant Director, Lok Seva Secretariate, vide Appeal No.
CIC/WP/A/06/00469, the Central Information Commission, while considering the grievance of the complainant therein regarding furnishing of the
information relating to evaluated answer sheets, has held as follows:
...The identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the process of examination, the concerned authorities should ensure
that the name and identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the process of examination is in no way disclosed so as
to endanger the life and physical safety of such person. If it is not possible to do so in such case, the authority concerned may decline to disclosure
of the evaluated answer sheets (Annexure- A/1/G)
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the discussions made above, the claim of the petitioner that the
information sought for in respect of the names of the members of the Interview Board cannot furnished since it would violate the confidentiality,
appears to be a reasonable objection. The refusal to disclose the information related to Item Nos. 4 and 5 raised by Respondent No. 3, on the
ground that such informations are redundant in view of the cancellation of entire selection process earlier advertised for, is also reasonable and
legitimate.
11. From the impugned orders, I find that the Information Commission has not considered the above objections of the petitioner in proper
perspective and has not applied its judicial mind to the issues involved.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the State Information Commission, are hereby quashed.