1

2026:CGHC:1819

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 2759 of 2025

Order reserved on 06.01.2026.

Order delivered on 13.01.2026

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Public Information

Officer, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1.Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its State Information

Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.Dr. Nareshkant Chandan Junior H.I.G. 07, Chhote Atramuda,

Deendayalpuram, Phase 1, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, 496001

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 2761 of 2025

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Public Information

Officer, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its State Information

Commissioner, Raipur C.G.

2.Dr. Nareshkant Chandan, Junior H.I.G. 07, Chhote Atramuda,

Deendayalpuram, Phase 1, Raigarh C.G. 496001

--- Respondent(s)

2

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani,

Respondent No.2: Dr. Nareshkant Chandan, in person.

Hon’ble Justice Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

C A V Order

1.Since common question of law and facts are involved in both writ

petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this

common order.

Writ Petition No. 2759 of 2025

2.Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has filed this petition against the

order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Chhattisgarh State Information

Commission (hereinafter referred to Commission) by which S.A. bearing

No. A/4396/2024/ Raigarh filed by the respondent No. 2 has been allowed

and the Commission has directed the petitioner to provide information

relating to the selected candidate Shailesh Kumar Patel regarding his 15

years of teaching or academic experience with grade pay of Rs. 7,000 or

8 years of experience of teaching or academic experience with grade pay

of Rs. 8,000/-. The petitioner has also sought certified copy of the Ph.D

degree of Shailendra Kumar Patel.

Writ Petition No. 2761 of 2025

3.Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has filed this petition against the

order dated 27.01.2025 passed by Chhattisgarh State Information

Commission (hereinafter referred to Commission) by which S.A. bearing

3

No. A/3830/2023/ Raigarh filed by the respondent No. 2 has been allowed

and the Commission has directed the petitioner to provide information

relating to the selected candidate Shailesh Kumar Patel regarding his 15

years of teaching or academic experience with grade pay of Rs. 7,000 or

8 years of experience of teaching or academic experience with grade pay

of Rs. 8,000/-. The petitioner has also sought certified copy of the Ph.D

degree of Shailendra Kumar Patel.

4.Brief facts as reflected from the records of both the writ petitions in brief,

are that

(a) Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to PSC) has initiated

selection process for appointment of Assistant Registrar in the University

wherein Dr. Shailendra Patel was selected on the aforesaid post and the

respondent No. 2 was wait list candidate. The PSC after finalizing the

examination has forwarded the list of selected candidate to the appointing

authority/ Secretary Higher Education Department for appointment.

Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application on 19.04.2023 wherein

he has sought following information which reads as under:-

N0x0 yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk dqylfpo] mPp f’k{kk gsrq tkjh vafre p;u ifj.kke

Øekad 600@12@p;u@2021 jk;iqj fnukad 30-09-21 ds vuqlkj Jh ’kSysUnz dqekj iVsy jksy

ua- 2010100003 dk p;u vU; fiNM+k oxZ esas dqylfpo ds in ij gqvk Fkk Jh ’kSysUnz dqekj

iVsy }kjk lk{kkRdkj ds le; izLrqr vfuok;Z ;ksX;rk ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr tkudkjh iznk;

djus gsrq &

¼1½ xzsM osru ¼,-th-ih-½ :i;s 7000 esa 15 o"kZ ds v/;kiu vuqHko vkdknfed xzsM

osru :i;s 8000 ;k mlls vf/k des 8 o"kZ dk vuqHko ftlesa lg izk/;kid ds :i esa v/;kiu

rFkk ’kS{kf.kd iz’kklu esa vuqHko ’kkfey gSA bl izek.k i= dk izekf.kr Nk;kizfr

¼2½ okaNuh; ;ksX;rk ih-,p-Mh- dh fMxzh dh izekf.kr Nk;kizfrA mDr nLrkost dh eq>s

vko’;drk gSA eSa bl vafre ifj.kke ds vuqiwjd lwph esa ’kkfey gwaA

4

(b) In WPC No. 2759 of 2025 the respondent No.2 has sought following

information which is reads as under:-

1- NRrhlx<-yksd lsok vk;ksx ds foKkiu Øekad 10@2020@ijh{kk@fnukad 12-

121-2020 izdk’ku frfFk 23-12-2020 ,oa tkjh ’kqf) i= Øekad 02@2021@ijh{kk@fnukad 09-

02-2021 }kjk foKkfir dqy lfpo ds in dh p;u izfØ;k iw.kZ djus ds Ik’pkr~ tkjh vafre

p;u ifj.kke dh izfrA

2- dafMdk 1 esa mYysf[kr foKkiu ds vuqlkj dqylfpo in esa p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk

vius&vius ;ksX;rk ds leFkZu esa izLrqr lefiZr nLrkost dh izfrA \

(c) The Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission vide

memo dated 19.04.2023 and 29.04.2024 has declined to provide

information to the information seekers on the account that these

information are personal information relating to third person, therefore, as

per Section 8(1) (J) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred

to Act, 2005) same cannot be furnished to him as he has not granted the

consent to provide the information to respondent No.2. Being aggrieved

with these orders, both the respondents have preferred First Appeal

before the Appellate Authority under RTI, office of the Public Service

Commission, Raipur. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated

23.05.2023 in appeal No. 7-A/2023 in appeal No. 33/2024 decided on

31.05.2024 has rejected the same.

(d) Being aggrieved with these orders, respondent No. 2 (in both the

cases) has preferred the appeal before the State Information Commission

mainly contending that the First Appellate Court malafidely has wrongly

interpreted Section 8(1) (J) of the Act, 2005 and has declined to supply

information to the petitioner, as such impugned order passed by the

5

Information Officer and First Appellate Authority are illegal and liable to be

quashed.

5.It is further contended that since the information sought by the respondent

No. 2 is not personal information and it does not interfere in the privacy of

a person, therefore, the information should have been provided. It has

also been contended that since the candidate has been selected, as such

he is the government servant, therefore, the order passed by authorities is

against the order passed by High Court of Jharkhand in WPS No. 5875

of 2024 in case of Geeta Kumari vs. State of Jharkhand decided on

23.06.2016, as such the order are illegal and liable to be quashed by the

Appellate Authority.

6.The First Appellate Authority has appeared before the State Information

Commission and contended that they have forwarded the application to

respondent No.2 selected candidate Shailendra Kumar Patel for granting

consent to provide information to the information seeker wherein the

selected candidate raised objection and requested not to provide

information as it is personal information accordingly they have refused to

provide information to the information seeker which is legal, justified and

does not warrant interference by the Appellate Authority and has prayed

for dismissal of the appeal.

7. The State Information Commission vide impugned orders relying upon the

judgment of High Court of Jharkhand in case of Geeta Kumari has

allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and directed State Public

Service Commission to provide information as sought by respondent

6

No.2. Being aggrieved with the order, Public Service Commission has

preferred these writ petitions mainly contending that the candidates

against whom the information was sought has not been selected

candidate, as such he cannot be classified as Government servant,

therefore, whatever information is available with them has already been

forwarded to the State Government who is the appointing authority of the

selected candidate, as such it cannot be given by them. It has been

further contended that since the information which was sought by

respondent No.2 is his personal information of the candidate and in

absence of any consent the same cannot be provided to the information

seeker. It has also been contended that the order passed by the High

Court of Jharkhand is not applicable to the facts of the case as at that

time the candidate was appointed, thereafter the information was sought

from the Department not from the Public Service Commission, as such it

has been prayed for allowing the petitions by quashing the order passed

by the State Information Commission. To substantiate his submission, he

has referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayed Hussain Abbas Rizavi,

reported 2012(13) SCC 61, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs.

Central Inforamtion Commission reported 2013(1) SCC 212, R.K. Jain

vs. Union of India reported 2013 (14) SCC 749 and Subhash Chandra

Agrawal vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India reported 2018(11) SCC

634 and would pray for allowing the petitions.

7

8.On the other hand learned counsel for respondent/State Information

Commission supporting the impugned orders would submit that the

selected candidate is a public servant, therefore, the order for directing for

providing information is legal, justified and does not warrant interference

by this Court.

9.The respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions appears before this Court

through video conferencing and would submit that the impugned order

passed by the State Information Commission is legal, justified once the

candidate has participated in the selection process and thereafter he has

been appointed and the selection process is completed therefore, it

become public document, as such there is no rider not to give information

and provision of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act will not come in rescue for the

petitioner to deny the information and would pray for dismissal of the

petitions.

10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11.From the submission made by the parties, the points emerged for

determination by this Court are

(I) Whether information of the candidates who have participated in

the examination conducted by the PSC their information deserves

to be given under RTI and candidates who have applied for the

post are entitled to get protection of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act or

not?

(ii) Whether petitioner who is not appointing authority is liable to

give information to the information seeker or not about the details

of the selected candidate?.

8

12.To appreciate the points determined by this Court, this Court has to

extract the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India and

Sections 8, and 11 of Right to Information Act.

Article 320 of the Constitution of India.

Functions of Public Service Commissions;-

(1) It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service

Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the

services of the Union and the services of the State respectively.

(2) It shall also be the duty of the Union Public Service Commission,

if requested by any two or more States so to do, to assist those

States in framing and operating schemes of joint recruitment for any

services for which candidates possessing special qualifications are

required.

(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service

Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted--

(a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services

and for civil posts;

(b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil

services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one

service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such

appointments, promotions or transfers;

(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the

Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity,

including memorials or petitions relating to such matters;

(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has

served under the Government of India or the Government of a State

or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian

State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by hi m in defending

legal proceedings instituted against hi m in respect of acts done or

purporting to be done in the execution of hi s duty should be paid out

of the Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the case may be, out of the

Consolidated Fund of the State;

(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries

sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India

or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under

the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any

question as to the amount of any such award,and it shall be the duty

of a Public Service Commission to advise on any matter so referred

to them and on any other matter which the President, or, as the case

may be, the Governor of the State, may refer to them:Provided that

the President as respects the all-India services and also as respects

other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union,

9

and the Governor as respects other services and posts in connection

with the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying the

matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or

in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public

Service Commission to be consulted.

(4) Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public Service Commission to

be consulted as respects the manner in which any provision referred

to in clause (4) of article 16 may be made or as respects the manner

in which effect may be given to the provisions of article 335.

(5) All regulations made under the proviso to clause ( 3 ) by the

President or the Governor of a State shall be laid for not less than

fourteen days before each House of Parliament or the House or each

House of the Legislature of the State, as the case may be, as soon

as possible after they are made, and shall be subject to such

modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as both

Houses of Parliament or the House or both Houses of the Legislature

of the State may make during the session in which they are so laid.

Section 8 and 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Exemption from disclosure of information.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no

obligation to give any citizen,

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the

sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or

economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to

incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published

by any Court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may

constitute contempt of Court;

(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of

privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or

intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the

competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is

satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such

information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,

unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public

interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or

physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or

assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security

purposes;

10

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or

apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(I) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of

Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons

thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were

taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the

matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the

exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of

which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which

would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual

unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public

Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is

satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such

information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the

Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of

1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-

section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if

public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected

interests.

(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section

(1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which

has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date

on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to

any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from

which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the

decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual

appeals provided for in this Act.

Section 11 in The Right to Information Act, 2005

Third party information.

(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any

information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this

Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has

been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public

Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case

may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a

written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the

Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,

11

as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or

part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing

or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and

such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a

decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets

protected by law,disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in

disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the

interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer

or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-

section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or

part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of

receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make

representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central

Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the

case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request

under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to

make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to

whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof

and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3)shall include a statement that

the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an

appeal under section 19 against the decision.

13.From perusal of the Article 320 of the Constitution of India the PSC is a

constitutional body which has been established for conducting

examination for appointment to the services of the Union and the State for

the candidates possessing special qualification for particular post.

Accordingly, it has too issue advertisement for recruitment and the

candidate who have qualification prescribed in the advertisement or in the

recruitment rules has to fill up form. Thereafter, the PSC who is

examination body will conduct the examination or follow the procedure

prescribed under the Recruitment Rules made therein and thereafter they

have to declare the selection list which culminates the entire selection

procedure on their part. Thereafter, the respective department on the

12

basis of select list sent by the PSC has to issue appointment order to the

candidate, therefore, it cannot be held that the PSC is an appointing

authority of the candidates and the candidate is the third party for PSC.

14.Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 8 and 11 of the Act, 2005 PSC

has to seek permission from the candidate whose information was sought

by the information seeker. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has

not disputed that the selected candidate has not given consent for

providing such information to the respondent No. 2. Even from the

application submitted before the Information authority, it is quite vivid that

the information which was sought is not for a pubic interest, as no

material has been placed by respondent No.2 to substantiate that it is for

his purpose, on the contrary in the application it has been mentioned that

he is a waiting list candidate, therefore, to question the appointment of the

petitioner this information was sought which is not object of RIT, Act, 2005

as the Act, 2005 enacted with an object to promote transparency and

accountability in the working of every public authority but not to take

personal revenge or to take personal vendetta, as such it cannot be held

that action of PSC in denying to provide information to respondent No.2

suffers from illegality, perversity or violative of provisions of RTI, 2005.

15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Public Service

Commission (supra) has examined the provisions of Section 8 and 11 of

the Act, 2005 as well public interest and emphasis for recording of the

satisfaction to be arrived at by the authorities objectively. Paragraphs 22,

23 and 24 of Bihar Public Service Commission (supra) are as under:-

13

23.The expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true

connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant

provisions of the Act. The expression ‘public interest’ must be

viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify

denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common

parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ‘public purpose’, is

not capable of any precise definition . It does not have a rigid

meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it

occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its

needs. (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh) (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It

also means the general welfare of the public that warrants

recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a

whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)].

24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities

objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be

weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The

decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for

ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion

of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters,

particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with

great confidentiality. The information may come to knowledge of the

authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that

information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and

fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus,

bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may

be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public

activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of

privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their

due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is

not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public

interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available

to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public

interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance

factor between right to privacy and right to information with the

purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be

served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these

rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution

of India.

25. First of all, the Court has to decide whether in the facts of the

present case, the Commission holds any fiduciary relationship with

the examinee or the interviewers. Discussion on this question need

not detain us any further as it stands fully answered by a judgment

of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education

and Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyuay and Ors. [(2011) 8 SCC 497]

wherein the Court held as under :-

“40. There are also certain relationships where both the parties

have to act in a fiduciary capacity treating the other as the

14

beneficiary. Examples of these are: a partner vis-à-vis another

partner and an employer vis-à-vis employee. An employee who

comes into possession of business or trade secrets or

confidential information relating to the employer in the course of

his employment, is expected to act as a fiduciary and cannot

disclose it to others. Similarly, if on the request of the employer

or official superior or the head of a department, an employee

furnishes his personal details and information, to be retained in

confidence, the employer, the official superior or departmental

head is expected to hold such personal information in

confidence as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if

the employee’s conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial to

the employer.

16.Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service

Commission vs Angesh Kumar reported in 2018(4) SCC 530 has

examined the provisions of Section 8 and 11 of the RTI, Act 2005,

paragraph, 6, 9 10 as under:-

6. Thus, it is clear that in interpreting the scheme of the Act, this

Court has, while adopting purposive interpretation, read

inherent limitation in Section 3 and 6 based on the Third Recital

in the Preamble to the Act. While balancing the right to

information, public interest including efficient working of the

Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and preservation

of confidentiality of sensitive information has to be balanced

and can be a guiding factor to deal with a given situation de

hors Section 8,9, and 11. The High Court has not applied the

said parameters.

9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on

the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal

resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the

other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to

marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be

furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic

bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks

will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above

which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made

out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing

of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a

given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly

such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case,

direction has been issued without considering these

parameters.

15

(10) In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside

and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed.

This order will not debar the respondents from making out a

case on above parameters and approach the appropriate

forum, if so advised.

17.From the above referred judgments and the provisions of Section 3,8 and

11 of the RTI, Act 2005, it is quite vivid, that the Authority while providing

information to the respondent No. 2 has to examine whether it is required

for public interest or not and whether such information can prejudice the

interest of selected candidate, Respondent No.1 has mechanically

passed the impugned orders dated 16.01.2025. Even the State

Information Commission has not taken into consideration that when the

selected candidate has not given his consent under which authority it can

provide such information of the selected candidate more particularly when

the selected candidate is not Government servant and selected candidate

has no indefensible right to be appointed.

18.So far as judgment of High Court of Jharkhand is concerned, it is

distinguishable on the facts that the candidate of that case was duly

appointed and the information was sought from the appointing authority

not from the Public Service Commission or any selection body. The State

Information Commission has passed the impugned orders without

examining the parameters and the safeguard provided under Section 11

of the RTI, Act 2005 and has passed nonspeaking order in violation of the

law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, this Court is of

the firm opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and

accordingly they are quashed. The applications submitted before the

16

Information Authorities are dismissed and the interim order passed by this

Court on 12.06.2025 made absolute.

19.Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

santosh