CA upholds RTIC directive to state bank to release info on recruitment
Calls for ‘transparency in public examinations’; says RTI Act gives citizens power to ‘surveil the State’
In a ruling dated February 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld a 2021 directive by the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) ordering a state bank to release the marks sheets of applicants who had sat for island-wide competitive examinations for recruitment of staff assistants to the bank.
Considering an appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by an unsuccessful candidate from Galle wanting to know why she had not been recruited despite passing the examination, the RTIC had ordered the state bank to release the interview marks, the merit lists, the lists of the selected officers based on merit from the Galle District and other ancillary particulars.
In dismissing the bank’s revision application against the RTIC, Justice D.N. Samarakoon observed that, though the marks obtained by other candidates may well qualify as ‘personal information,’ it is in the interests of the public that public examinations on the basis of which citizens are recruited to occupations on merit, must be honest, upright and transparent.’
The relevant information has a relationship to a public activity or interest; this is something that a concerned citizen has the ‘right to know’ as recognised by the Constitution. Hence, there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy in releasing the merit list prepared on individual marks, the Court said.
Remarking that the RTI Act brings the State into the ‘receiving end of asymmetrical surveillance,’ it was pointed out that citizens now have the power to question the State while the State has to police itself for fear of adverse public opinion. This is the ‘opposite of the surveillance State... the roles have been changed; the observer has now become the observed,’ the Court reminded.
An objection raised by the bank that releasing the information would harm the ‘integrity’ of the examination was dismissed, with Justice Samarakon noting that the Commission ‘in its wisdom had ordered a structured manner of disclosure of information’ and that the objection raised by the bank had no merit.
A further argument that the RTIC decision was ‘not valid in law’ as it had been signed by four commissioners and not the full strength of five commissioners was also dismissed. It was emphasised that the RTI Act had stipulated a quorum of three members without making any distinction between the RTIC’s administrative and judicial/quasi-judicial functions. As such, an order signed by three or more is a valid order, the Court ruled.