Information related to other shortlisted candidates was denied u/s 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act; Cut off marks and marks of the appellant were provided - CIC: Give copy of the appellant’s OMR sheet and answer key

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Reference: written Examination for the post – “Assistant Registrar” Date: 22.10.2023 (Sunday)

1. Has the result of the above mentioned post been declared? If not, what is the reason?

2. If yes, when and on what date and which medium was used?

3. What was the cut off marks in this written examination?

4. How many candidates shortlisted for interview?

5. Why did Jamia Millia Islamia not release the merit list after written exam? …, etc./ other related information.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1 and 2. Yes. As per practice, only the shortlisted candidates are informed about their selection.

3. 66 marks

4. Refer to website of the University for obtaining the desired information

5. Interpretation/clarification/opinion is not covered under RTI Act 2005. Etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.03.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Shabana Mehfuz, Professor, Mr. Kamal Hassan, UDC and Mr. Danish Ahmad, UDC, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought marks obtained by him and other shortlisted candidates w.r.t post of Assistant Registrar. He stated that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise suitable reply has been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 29.12.2023. She stated that the information sought also related to other shortlisted candidates and the same had been denied u/s 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. However, marks of the appellant had been provided and for further queries the appellant was requested to visit their office, but he did not come.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that on point nos. 1 to 6 of the RTI application, the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, the CPIO vide letter dated 29.12.2023 has provided available information on the above points and marks of the appellant. Further, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act for point nos. 9 to 11. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”

9. Nonetheless, by taking a liberal view in the matter, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a revised reply to the appellant giving copy of the appellant’s OMR sheet and answer key within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Subhash Chand v. Jamia Millia Islamia, CIC/JAMIS/A/2024/609792; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025