JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. G.C. Sarma, being the respondent No. 3 in person. 2. The respondent No. 3 had made an application dated 17.2.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act, 2005’) before the State Public Information Officer of the Assam Public Service Commission (in short APSC) for furnishing the following information: Details of marks obtained in both of written and oral examinations by- (a) All the candidates selected vide Notification No. 203 PSC/CCE-/81-82 dated 8th March, 1983. (b) The first 20 candidates of selection Notification No. 204 PSC/CCE-81-82 dated 26th July, 1983. (c) Shri Girish Chandra Sarma with Roll No. 9880 of that batch. (d) Highest marks scored in each subject with the names of the candidates against each subject in that examination. 3. It is noticed that the nature of the information sought for is the marks obtained by the respondent No. 3 and the first 20 candidates who had participated in the same selection process held in the year 1983 and also the highest marks obtained in the respective subjects in that examination. It is further noticed that apart from the marks secured by the candidates, no further information has been sought for by the respondent No. 3. 4. The said request by the respondent No. 3 was rejected by the State Public Information Officer, APSC by taking the plea that the information of the marks that has been sought for are third party information and, therefore, it cannot be provided. However, the APSC provided the marks secured by the respondent No. 3. 5. Against the said rejection, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate authority within the APSC, which was also rejected. It is pointed out by Mr. C Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the appeal preferred before the appellate authority of the APSC, the respondent No. 3 had expanded his scope of the information sought for, inasmuch as, in the initial application, marks of 20 candidates were sought for, but in the appeal, marks of 100 candidates were sought for. 6. Against the said rejection by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal before the Assam State Information Commission. 6. Against the said rejection by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal before the Assam State Information Commission. The State Information Commission by the order dated 26.7.2012 had arrived at a conclusion that under section 8(J) of the RTI Act, 2005, exemptions are provided from disclosure of personal information, which would have no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, the Information Commission had arrived at a conclusion that the marks obtained by a candidate in a competitive examination cannot be said to be information of such category which has no public interest. Accordingly, the APSC was directed to furnish the information in Question Nos. A and B of the RTI application within 15 days. 7. This writ petition has been preferred by the APSC on the ground that the Information Commission had failed to make out any case to establish that the information sought for by the respondent No. 3 are of public interest. This court is of the view that the said question whether the marks sought for by the respondent No. 3 regarding other candidates has any public interest or not need not be answered in this writ petition. It is noticed that in the original application seeking the information, the respondent No. 3 had sought only for the marks of some other candidates in the same examination where the respondent No. 3 had also participated. In the view of this court, the marks obtained by the other candidates are not information in the nature of third party information. It is also noticed that the said request for the information had been rejected by the Information Officer of the APSC on the ground that the required information are third party information. This court is of the view that the marks obtained by the candidates in a public examination are not third party information and in fact they are in the nature of public information. The original rejection of the APSC that the information sought for by the respondent No. 3 as it is third party information is found to be unacceptable. 8. The marks sought for by the respondent No. 3 are distinguishable from any other information regarding the performance of the other candidates in the examination like answer scripts, etc. The original rejection of the APSC that the information sought for by the respondent No. 3 as it is third party information is found to be unacceptable. 8. The marks sought for by the respondent No. 3 are distinguishable from any other information regarding the performance of the other candidates in the examination like answer scripts, etc. Although any other information may be classified as information exempted under section 87 of the RTI Act, other information may be classified in some other manner, but the marks obtained by the candidates cannot be construed to be third party information. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the marks obtained by the 20 candidates as sought for in the original application requesting the information be provided to the respondent No. 3. The required information be provided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.