Personal information is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless larger public interest is demonstrated, as established by judicial precedents.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Please provide a certified copy of the list of candidates called for interview, number of candidates appeared for MCQ, Written test and Personal Interview along with the marks awarded/ scored in each i.e. MCQ, Written test and Personal Interview by each candidate, for the post of Deputy Registrar against Advt/Tiss/Non-Teaching Positions/February/2022.

(ii) Please provide a certified copy of proceedings of the selection committee constituted for conduct of interview to the post of Deputy Registrar against Advt/Tiss/Non-Teaching Positions/February/2022.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“The desired information is exempted u/s 8 (1)(d) & (j)- the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2022 held as under:

“Please find the attached FAA order for your information. With reference to the attached FAA order, please deposit an amount of Rs 2/- towards the additional fees for the desired information. The bank details are attached here. Once the payment is done, please send the payment acknowledgement receipt on mahesh.ghule@tiss.edu for our office record.”

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

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding certified copy of the list of candidates called for interview, number of candidates appeared for MCQ etc. He further submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not correct. He stated that he was one of the candidates who appeared in the exam and topped the written test, but the candidates who had scored lesser marks were selected. Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought. However, marks of all candidates obtained in the written test were uploaded on the TISS website on 26.07.2022. In a similar manner, the other information also needs to be provided by respondent.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 09.11.2022. The perusal of records further reveals that without disclosing the names of the candidates, marks scored in the descriptive test by all candidates have been furnished to the appellant. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish the MCQ and personal interview marks of all the candidates, if available, after redacting personal information of the other candidates to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

8. Further, the Commission notes that the remaining information sought pertains to the personal details of other candidates (third parties), which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties 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) 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 Des