By State Bank’s Examination Secrets Laid Bare by RTI Act
In a startling revelation, the Court of Appeal has given the green light to the release of confidential information by a state bank, following a directive from the Right to Information Commission (RTIC). The controversial ruling, dated February 12, 2024, exposed the marks sheets of applicants who underwent island-wide competitive examinations for staff assistant recruitment.
Rejection Questioned
The drama unfolded when an unsuccessful candidate from Galle, fueled by the desire to unveil the mysteries behind her rejection despite passing the examination, filed an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The RTIC, in a 2021 directive, compelled the state bank to spill the beans, demanding the release of interview marks, merit lists, selected officers’ lists based on merit from the Galle District, and other associated details.
Justice D.N. Samarakoon, dismissing the bank’s attempt to overturn the RTIC directive, boldly stated that transparency in public examinations is crucial for the public interest. “Though the marks obtained by other candidates may well qualify as ‘personal information,’ it is in the interests of the public that public examinations… must be honest, upright and transparent,” observed Justice Samarakoon.
In a jaw-dropping twist, the Court emphasized that the Right to Information Act has turned the tables on the State, making it the subject of ‘asymmetrical surveillance.’ Now armed with the power to scrutinize the State, citizens can question its actions, forcing the State to self-police to avoid adverse public opinion. The Court described this shift as the ‘opposite of the surveillance State… the roles have been changed; the observer has now become the observed.’
Integrity of Exam
The bank’s objections, claiming that the release of information would harm the ‘integrity’ of the examination, were swiftly dismissed. Justice Samarakon highlighted that the Commission had ordered a structured disclosure of information, rendering the objection meritless.
A last-ditch effort by the bank to invalidate the RTIC decision on the grounds that it lacked the full strength of five commissioners was also quashed. The Court underlined that the RTI Act specified a quorum of three members, making any order signed by three or more commissioners legally valid.
This ruling not only exposes the inner workings of the state bank’s recruitment process but also raises questions about the transparency and fairness of other public examinations across the nation. As citizens gain more power to ‘surveil the State,’ it remains to be seen what other secrets might be unveiled through the lens of the Right to Information Ac
