Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The West Bengal College Service ... vs Sri Binay Krishna Pal & Ors on 15 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Subrata Talukdar.
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Kesang Doma Bhutia.
MAT No.711 of 2021
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
The West Bengal College Service Commission & Ors.
VS.
Sri Binay Krishna Pal & Ors.
With
MAT 713 of 2021
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
The West Bengal College Service Commission & Ors.
-vs-
Smt. Priyanka Kundu & Ors.
MAT 723 of 2021
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
The West Bengal College Service Commission & Ors.
-vs
Dr. Md. Zahir Abbas & Ors.
With
MAT 724 of 2021
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
The West Bengal College Service Commission & Ors.
-vs
Sumita Mandal & Ors.
With
2
MAT 906 of 2021
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
The West Bengal College Service Commission & Ors.
vs
Jaya Biswas @ Jaya Biswas Roy & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mandal
Ms. Bandana Mandal
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda
For the Proforma-respondent : Mr. Achinta Kumar Banerjee
in all the appeals Ms. Indumouli Banerjee
For the Resp. no. 1 in : Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
MAT 711 of 2021: Mr. Kajal Roy
Mr. Biswarup Biswas
For the Resp. no. 1 in : Mr. Kajal Roy
MAT 713 of 2021, Mr. Biswarup Biswas
MAT 724 of 2021 &
MAT 906 of 2021.
For the Resp. no.1 : Mr. Sarwar Jahan
& 2 in MAT 723 of 2021 Md. Ashraful Huq
Mr.Maidul Islam Nayal
For the State in all : Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta
the five appeals Mr. Shamim-ul-Bari
For the University Grants : Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta
Commission
Hearing concluded on : 04.10.2021
Judgment on : 15.11.2021
Kesang Doma Bhutia, J.-
This common judgment will decide the following appeals:-
1 MAT 711 of 2021, IACAN No. 1 of 2021 filed by Binay Krishna Pal
(UR candidate for Geography ),
2 Mat 713 of 2021, IA No. CAN 1 of 2021, filed by Smt Priyanka
Kundu (UR candidate for Geography),
3 MAT 723 of 2021 IA CAN No. 1 of 2021 filed by Dr. Md. Zahir
Abbas (OBC candidate for Geography),
4 MAT 724 of 2021 IA CAN No. 1 of 2021 filed by Sumita Mandal
(S.C. candidate for Bengali) and
5 Mat 906 of 2021 IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 filed by Jaya Biswas Roy
(SC candidate for Bengali).
In all the above Appeals common questions of facts and law are
involved.
The facts giving rise to the above Appeals in gist are that the West
Bengal College Service Commission (in short WBCSC) vide
Advertisement No 1/18 dated 16.07.2018, invited applications for
recruitment for the post of Assistant Professors in different subjects
in different aided colleges in West Bengal.
Eligible Candidates were called for interview for selection. Based
on academic profile and performance in interview of all the candidates,
WBCSC declared provisional Merit List for the recruitment of Assistant
Professors in different subjects on 06.03.2020, but failed to disclose
the detailed score sheet of the individual candidate on its website.
All Appellants/Writ Petitioners being unsuccessful candidates in
the interview and not getting recommendation have filed the Writ
Petition on 24.03.2021, challenging the recruitment process and
alleged nepotism and unfair means being adopted in the selection
process, compromising with the quality of the Higher Education in
Bengal.
Candidates with meritorious academic background have been
bypassed by awarding less marks in the interview by the members of
the interview board and thereby they have prayed for issuance of Writ
of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Writs for quashing the
entire selection process, panel dated 06.03.2020, recommendation,
appointment and for initiating de-novo selection process. They have
also prayed for restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the
advertisement dated 16.07.2018.
After hearing the first four Writ Petitions on 07.07.2021, and
Writ Petition filed by Jaya Biswas alias Roy on 12.08.2021, the
Hon'ble Single Bench, has been pleased to direct WBCSC to file a
report annexing the score sheet with the breakup of the marks in
respect of all the empanelled candidates for the subject Geography
and Bengali, for recruitment of Assistant Professors in Government
Aided Colleges on the basis of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2018 by July
30, 2021 in the first four Writ Petitions, but no specific date has been
fixed for submission of report by Commission in Petitioner Jaya
Biswas's Case.
Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Hon'ble Single
Bench in those Writ Applications, WBCSC has preferred the present
five appeals and alleged that the Writ Petitioners being unsuccessful
candidates and who have been supplied with their individual score
sheet with breakup, have no right to seek information of third parties
in respect of marks obtained by the candidates in the panel awarded
by experts during interview.
They have also alleged that no prayer has been made by the Writ
Petitioners in their petitions for disclosure of total marks with breakup
scored by other empanelled candidates. The Hon'ble Single Bench
committed wrong in passing the impugned order and that too without
giving an opportunity to the Appellants to controvert the allegation
through affidavit. They have also alleged that the Writ Petitions are not
maintainable. Therefore, they have prayed for setting aside the
impugned order.
Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Kishore Dutta, appearing for the
appellants submitted that the Hon'ble Single Bench has been pleased
to pass the impugned order without taking into consideration the
provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 and binding
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further contended that the
commission is not bound to disclose in public the information called
for by the Hon'ble Single Bench in view of the Judgement passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission etc.
VS. Angesh Kumar and others as reported in (2018) 4 SCC 530.
However, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants as per the direction of this
Court has placed the report as directed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in
a sealed cover on 04.10.2021.
On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents
submitted that the information/report called for the Hon'ble Single
Bench has already been supplied to the Writ Petitioners by WBCSC, as
per the direction of the Appellate Authority of WBCSC under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 and copy of detailed score sheets of all
Empaneled Candidates in WBCSC Recruitment in Geography (Advt.
1/2018) is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by Binay
Krishna Paul/ Respondent No.1 of MAT 711 of 2021. Therefore, in the
present situation Appeals are not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed.
However, this court is required to examine whether the
information called for by Hon'ble Single Bench is barred by The Right
to Information Act, 2005 as alleged by Ld. Counsel for the Appellants?
The Apex Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed
Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61, held that no obligation is cast
upon a public authority to furnish information, disclosure of which
would endanger life and physical safety of any person. All information
which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding
fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such
information would not have been provided to that authority, would
normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure
keeping the higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such
relationship in mind. Personal information disclosure of which has no
relation to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual can be withheld unless
authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies
disclosure of this information. Further held, expression "public
interest" must be strictly construed so as to justify denial of statutory
exemption. Moreover, public interest has to be construed while
balancing right to privacy and right to information with purpose
sought to be achieved and purpose that would be served in larger
public interest. Furthermore, satisfaction has to be arrived at by
authority objectively and consequences of such disclosure have to be
weighed with regard to circumstances of the case
In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, it was held
the information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-
coordinators/scrutinizers/head examiners are exempted from
disclosure under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, on the ground that if
such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety.
Those portions of the answer books which contain information
regarding the examiners/co-coordinators/scrutinizers/head
examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to
signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise
severed from the non-exempted part of the answer books, under
Section 10 of the RTI Act.
In Kerala PSC v. State Information Commission, (2016) 3 SCC
417, it was held if there exists a fiduciary relationship between
examiner and PSC. disclosure of identity of examiners is in the least
interest of the general public. It would rather give rise to dire
consequences and would lead to public unrest and confusion.
In UPSC Vs Angesh Kumar and others (2018)4 SCC 530 as cited
by Ld. Counsel for WBCSC, it was held that weighing the need for
transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of
confidentiality of sensitive information on the other hand, the
information sought with regard to marks in Civil Service Exams, by
unsuccessful candidates cannot be furnished mechanically. If public
interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly
entitled to so require in a given fact situation.
From the above decisions, it is seen that information seeking
details of examiner or members of interview board, with whom
examination conducting bodies /commission holds fiduciary
relationship should not be disclosed for safety of their life and physical
safety and they would be called to explain their assessment and later
they may decline to take the assignment or may play safe.
Consequently mediocrity would prevail and integrity of the system
would be compromised.
In the present case, the writ petitioners were needed not to
appear in any written examination except interview. They were
evaluated on the basis of their performance in interview, academic
qualification, Research Papers, Teaching Experience and the result of
them passing NET/JRF/SET. The Hon'ble Single Bench, by passing
the impugned order, has called for a Report disclosing the total marks
with breakup of all the empanelled candidates for appointment as
Assistant Professors (Geography and Bengali) in Government-Aided
Colleges in Bengal vide Advertisement dated 16.07.2018 and, not the
details of the members of the interview board or personal information
invading the privacy of individual empanelled candidates.
On the contrary decisions of the Appellate Authority under RTI
Act to supply the Score Sheet of all empanelled candidates to the writ
petitioners prior to the disposal of the present Appeal where the
impugned order calling for the score sheet of all empanelled
candidates with break-up is under challenge, itself proves that the
Report called by the Hon'ble Single Judge is not an exempted
information as provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.
That apart, the preamble of the RTI Act is its soul clearly spelling
out the aims and objectives of the Act to provide a practical regime of
the right to citizens to secure access to information under the control
of public authorities in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority. The
Constitution of India has established a Democratic Republic.
Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of
information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain
corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed;
Therefore, this Court holds the impugned order passed by the
Hon'ble Single Bench to be in Public interest to promote transparency
and accountability in the functioning of the College Service
Commission, which is a body responsible for conducting public
examination.
Furthermore, the Appellant/ Commission having already
disclosed the information called for by the Hon'ble Single Bench to the
writ petitioners/unsuccessful candidates in pursuance of the direction
of the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and that too before the
same was submitted in sealed cover by Ld. Counsel for the
Commission/Appellants to this Court, renders the Appeals otiose.
Consequently all five appeals along with their connected
applications stand dismissed, however without any order as to costs.
Since these analogous Appeals are heard on the points of law on
the basis of materials which are already on record, as such no
affidavits are invited. Allegations made are deemed to be denied.
Let the matter return to the Hon'ble Single Bench.
Let the Report submitted by Learned Counsel for Appellants in
sealed cover be now placed before the Hon'ble Single Bench.
MAT 711 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021, MAT 713 of
2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021, MAT 723 of 2021 with IA No.
CAN 1 of 2021, MAT 724 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 and
MAT 906 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 stand thus dismissed
on contest.
All parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied
for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite
formalities.
I Agree,
(Subrata Talukdar, J.) (Kesang Doma Bhutia, J.)
Later
Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellants prays for Stay of the order.
Stay of the order prayed for is considered and refused.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.) (Kesang Doma Bhutia, J.)
