Marks of selected candidates should be made public: Karnataka Information Commission
Bengaluru: Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that all govt agencies should ensure transparency in recruitment by disclosing marks of selected candidates.
The directive comes in the backdrop of an appeal being heard on Karnataka Neeravari Nigama (KNN) Ltd's recent recruitment.
State information commissioner Rajashekara S directed Nigama to paste the selection list on its head office notice board and upload it on its official website.
Rajashekara also directed Nigama to disclose the marks of selected candidates in all recruitments undertaken by it in future too.
The directive followed a complaint from Jnanabharathi resident KP Nanjundaswamy, who had applied for the post of accounts assistant in KNN.
After failing in the interview, he filed an RTI application on June 15, 2023, and sought to know the interview marks of candidates to understand how selections were made.
"I just wanted to understand in which section I lost marks," Nanjundaswamy told TOI. With no response from the public information officer (PIO), he filed an appeal on Aug 25, 2023, followed by a second appeal to the commission on Dec 7, 2023, after the first appellate authority also failed to respond.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Descubra ofertas de voos imperdíveis
Voos | Anúncios de Pesquisa
Saiba Mais
Undo
It was only after KIC issued a notice that the PIO responded, denying the information and claiming the data was "personal" and not linked to public interest.
Rajashekara rejected this defence, stating that transparency in public recruitment outweighs privacy concerns in such cases. "We are also of the view that disclosure of marks, though it may fall in the category of personal information, is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not information which cannot be given by the information officer under RTI Act, 2005.
To the contrary, such information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process," Rajashekara said, quoting a Supreme Court judgment.
The SC had stated: "Though marks may fall under personal information, their disclosure is necessary in public interest to ensure transparency in the selection process."
Under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, personal information can be withheld only if it causes an unwarranted invasion of privacy and lacks public interest.
However, when it comes to recruitment, transparency takes precedence.
Backing this view, the commissioner added that Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) has consistently been publishing both written and interview scores of all candidates, setting a precedent for transparency. "The PIO and first appellate authority neither provided the information nor issued any reasoned denial until the commission issued a notice," the order noted, calling out the inaction as unacceptable under RTI norms.
After going through the evidence and hearing both sides, the commission directed KNN PIO and the company secretary to furnish the requested interview marks to the appellant before the next hearing. Following this, KNN not only furnished the list of candidates and marks scored by them but also pasted the same on the notice board at its head office recently.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
RTI victory for JAC at PGI: CPIO directed to provide info in 30 days
Chandigarh: In a significant development at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, the first appellate authority (FAA) has directed the chief public information officer (CPIO), Vigilance Cell, to furnish information sought under Right to Information (RTI) Act, free of cost, within 30 days. The order follows a complaint filed by the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of PGI over denial of RTI information. The JAC had sought details of cases referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from January 1, 2020, onward, specifically those related to fraudulent withdrawal of medicines, drugs, and surgical items on forged indents in the Prime Minister's Grant case. However, the CPIO rejected the application, stating that the JAC did not qualify as a "citizen" under Rule 3 of the RTI Act, 2005. In response, the JAC filed a first appeal dated May 24, 2025, before the FAA, requesting immediate disclosure of the information and enforcement of suo moto publication of such details on PGIMER's website under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. They also called for imposition of a penalty of Rs 250 per day for delay in providing information, as prescribed under Section 20 (1) of the Act. Dr Sunil K Gupta, chief vigilance officer and first appellate authority, issued a detailed ruling directing the CPIO to provide the requested information within 30 days and ensure its publication on the official website of the institute. He observed that the original case file was examined and the CPIO's technical objection—based on a narrow interpretation of the term "citizen"—was not tenable in light of prevailing legal precedents. "The CPIO, Vigilance Cell, is directed to provide requisite information as per rule to the applicant within 30 days, free of cost, and also ensure suo moto disclosure of the information on the website of PGIMER," stated Dr Gupta in the order. The FAA also referenced a Central Information Commission (CIC) ruling dated January 7, 2025, which clarified that office-bearers of associations, unions, and other collective entities are entitled to seek information under the RTI Act on behalf of their organisations. This legal precedent played a crucial role in the decision to allow the JAC's application. A copy of the order has been sent to the system analyst, computer cell, PGIMER, for prompt uploading of relevant information on the institution's website. MSID:: 121956868 413 |
Economic Times
a day ago
- Economic Times
Rx Name Unethical Practitioners: A medical thriller unfolds in India
Don't hide them behind stethos In an episode that could rival a streaming medical thriller, Department of Pharmaceuticals' (DoP) Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices, under the ministry of chemicals and fertilisers, has found that AbbVie Healthcare India, a subsidiary of the US-based AbbVie Inc, had sponsored international trips for 30 doctors by spending nearly ₹1.91 cr in breach of Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) 2024. The trips were to Paris and Monaco - for an 'anti-ageing conference'. The twist? DoP refuses to reveal the names of these doctors, claiming that it would serve 'no public interest'. Seriously? Under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, personal information can be withheld unless it relates to public activity, or involves a larger public interest. The Supreme Court in 'CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay' (2011) clarified that public interest trumps privacy when the matter involves ethics, misuse of public trust or potential illegality. Exposing medical professionals breaching ethical codes is as public interest-worthy as things can get. These were corporate-sponsored trips in violation of Medical Council of India (MCI) Code of Ethics, now incorporated under National Medical Commission (NMC). It could also be a tax issue. In 'Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT' (2022), Supreme Court held that pharma companies can't claim expenses on such freebies as business deductions under Section 37(1) of I-T Act. Any expenditure prohibited by law, or contrary to public policy, can't be deemed a legitimate business expense. Finance Bill 2022 reinforced this, barring deductions for any expense in violation of MCI Code or Clause 7.2 of the UCPMP (Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices). Under Section 28(iv), any non-cash benefit or perk arising from the exercise of a profession is taxable as 'profits and gains from business or profession'. So, doctors cannot claim these as business expenses, write them off or hide them behind a stethoscope. These are professional receipts, and I-T department expects them to be are these freebies valued by the recipient? Where value is ascertainable, the law mandates it be used. For goods - say, a smartphone - use the fair market value. For services like travel or hotel stays, the actual cost to provider - in this case, AbbVie - must be included. Doctors are expected to report these benefits and maintain documentary evidence, such as brochures, invoices, travel itineraries, etc. There are penalties for wilful concealment.I-T department's investigation wing can legally requisition information from DoP, the sponsoring pharma company - AbbVie, here - and even travel agencies that arranged these foreign trips. If AbbVie failed to report these expenses under Section 285BA (statement of financial transactions) of I-T Act, it could constitute non-reporting of high-value data in hand, under Section 147 (reassessment), if any income (like value of these freebies) has escaped assessment, the assessing officer can reopen past returns. Under Section 69/69B, any unexplained income or expenditure can be added to the doctor's taxable income. Non-disclosure triggers penalties under Section 270A, interest under Sections 234B and 234C, and in cases of wilful concealment, prosecution under Section as a US multinational, could also fall under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Under FCPA, doctors at public hospitals abroad - in this case, in India - are treated as foreign officials. Giving 'anything of value' - from per diems and conference sponsorships, to charitable donations - with a corrupt intent can trigger civil and criminal penalties in the US. Several global pharma companies have already faced FCPA enforcement for sponsoring foreign trips, or donating to charities run by government we have here is actually a systemic failure to enforce transparency in an area that affects public health, tax revenue and professional integrity. By refusing to name the doctors, DoP is enabling opacity, shielding violators and undermining the credibility of India's regulatory it sends a dangerous signal. The refusal to reveal names is not about privacy. It's about protecting privilege. And when privilege leads to tax evasion and ethical violations, silence becomes a public trust deficit. In this case, what happened in Paris and Monaco shouldn't stay in Paris and Monaco. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Why Infy's Parekh takes home more than TCS' CEO despite being smaller Central bankers print currency for all, but why do they chase gold? Worrying cracks hiding behind MG Motor's own 'house of Windsor' Why failed small businessmen die by suicide when those behind big blow-ups bounce back? Stock Radar: Ascending Triangle pattern breakout makes Mphasis an attractive buy; stock up over 30% from April lows Buy, Sell or Hold: BSE doubles from March lows, but brokerages turn cautious after SEBI's expiry day directive These mid-cap stocks with 'Strong Buy' & 'Buy' recos can rally over 25%, according to analysts F&O Radar| Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty for gains from volatility, negative stance
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Seminar on RTI Act held at BLW
BLW's seminar on RTI Act: A seminar on Right to Information (RTI) Act was held at BLW on Tuesday. The aim was to simplify the Act, promote transparency, find solutions to the problems in providing information, and motivate citizens to use this Act effectively. Presiding over the seminar, Lalji Chaudhary, principal chief personnel officer-administration, said that the Right to Information is not just an Act, but the soul of democracy. It is a moral and legal responsibility to provide correct and accurate information to the citizens on time. He also suggested that a clear list of documents that are eligible and ineligible for making information available should be prepared, and timely file management should be ensured. Speaking on the occasion, Manish Kumar Singh, senior law officer and central public information officer, gave detailed information on the basic sections of the Act, application process, role of public information officers, appeal process, and limitations of confidentiality through a powerpoint presentation. He also resolved the queries of the officers, appellate authorities, and employees present. He highlighted how the BLW RTI Act Cell faces practical difficulties in obtaining information from the departments and emphasised the need to further strengthen the coordination mechanism to resolve them.
