Public Information Officers cannot refuse to disclose non-sensitive information related to government appointments under the RTI Act, emphasizing transparency and accountability.

1. The instant complaint was filed by the Complainant on the following grounds: “I take this opportunity to bring to your attention a matter of great concern involving the alleged misconduct of Rajeev Kumar Singh, who currently serves as the CPIO at the Central University of Haryana. Without my saying so, several of my students have taken it upon themselves to diligently examine the case. For this, they submitted RTI applications to thoroughly investigate the unlawful appointment of Rajeev Kumar Singh as a Professor in the Department of Political Science. I have been informed by my students that Rajeev Kumar Singh, who himself is the CPIO, has consistently refused to disclose any information related to his alleged illegitimate appointment as a professor. He is doing this because he is well aware of his ineligibility for the position. As a result, he is attempting to hide the relevant information in order to evade legal scrutiny for as long as possible. Your prompt attention to this matter will be highly appreciated. Registration number of RTIs – CUVRH/R/E/23/00045 & CUVRH/R/E/23/00044 In this regard, let me explain the legal position with regard to the RTI Act and why Rajeev Kumar Singh’s conduct is illegal and under suspicion. I am citing several cases where the Hon’ble High Courts and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court have determined that only ONE type of “personal information” interest is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act—When that information will not serve the larger public interest and bears no connection to public activity. Furthermore, the Court has ruled that non-sensitive and non- confidential information cannot be withheld. Emphasizing that disclosure is the norm and refusal of information is the exception under the RTI Act, the courts have declared that the selection and appointment process for government posts cannot be considered a personal affair, nor can it be regarded as sensitive or confidential. Since selection processes can potentially involve corruption and human rights violations, the RTI Act does not allow the government to deny information related to such allegations of corruption or such information that does not pertain to sensitive and confidential activities.

The cases are as follows:

1. Subash Mohapatra Vs. State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) W.P. (C) Nos. 14286, 16718, and 17950 of 2016 2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865 3. S.P. Gupta v. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149 4. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112 5. Bipan Modi v. State of Punjab 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 18520 6. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [2011] (8) SCALE 645 7. Superintendent of Police v. R Karthikeyan AIR 2012 Mad 84 Thus, Public Information Officers (PIOs) cannot refuse information with regard to illegal appointments under Section 8(1)(J) of the RTI Act. The public retains the right to know the qualifications and experience of professors in a central university. This is not a top secret. Secondly, the university must quash this illegal appointment as early as possible because this case will not stand its ground in a court of law and will bring utter disrepute to the university.

Consider the legal position on such cases— In Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. , (2006) 2 SCC 315 , the court ruled that qualifications and experience serve as essential criteria for appointment eligibility. An appointment made without fulfilling these criteria is considered illegal employment. In the following cases, it has been held that illegality in qualification at the time of appointment can’t be rectified or cured by any means.

Therefore, the only solution is to quash the appointment. ⎯ Jitendra Kumar v. King George Medical University 2018 SCC 5988 . ⎯ Gulshan Kumar Singh v. Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University 2010 SCC 2594 . ⎯ Nagendra Chandra v. State of Jharkhand ⎯ Government of A.P. v. K.Brahmanandam ⎯ Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Seconda