Uco Bank Vs. Central Information Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- hemant gupta, j.1. the challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 2.7.2008 (annexure p-30) passed by central information commission, directing the petitioner to disclose information in respect of marks obtained by respondent no. 2 in written test; interview as well as marks obtained by the last candidate who was found suitable to be promoted. the petitioner has been further directed to disclose to respondent no. 2 his annual confidential reports.2. it is pointed out by the petitioner that information sought by the petitioner was earlier communicated on 3.10.2007 whereby respondent no. 2 was informed that he has got 21 marks in interview. therefore, it is contended that respondent no. 2 is seeking information as a part of vindictive attitude so as to involve the bank and its officers in multiple litigation. thus, information sought cannot be supplied to respondent no. 2.3. it is also contended that in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the right to information act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) personal information cannot be supplied to respondent no. 2. it is contended that the marks obtained by candidate is a personal information and thus the petitioner is not bound to disclose the same.4. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the present petition. the petitioner is a state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of india and is bound to act fairly and to consider all the eligible candidate for promotion in accordance with the rules and guidelines framed. it appears that the grievance of respondent no. 2 is that he has been wrongfully ignored from promotion and therefore he has sought information in respect of marks obtained in written test, interview and the grading in the annual confidential reports so as to find out whether the decision making process of the petitioner is fair and reasonable and satisfies the requirement of fairness in terms of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india.5. the fact that the petitioner supplied information in respect of interview marks itself is indicative of the law that the information can be supplied to respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 has sought information in respect of his grading by the competent authority. such information is not personal information as the information sought is in respect of right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules. the personal information can be said to be information relating to a person and not in respect of grading of a candidate. therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner that under section 8(1)(j) of the act, such information cannot be supplied. the argument that information sought is part of vindictiveness of respondent no. 2 is not tenable. the information sought is in respect of marks obtained which cannot be said to wanting in bonafides in any manner.6. in view of above we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.