Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4158
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Deepak Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
PIO, National Law University, Delhi – Respondent
CIC/NLUDL/A/2024/112017
For the Appellant: Not present
For the Respondents: Shri Virender Singh Negi, Shri Aditya Sachdeva
The Central Information Commission upheld the PIO's decision to withhold personal information under the RTI Act, ruling that statutory compliance was observed.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) - Second Appeal against the decision of PIO regarding non-disclosure of interview marks and minutes of Selection Committee in a recruitment process - The Commission noted compliance with RTI provisions was upheld, and there was no obligation to disclose personal information of third parties. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Appeal Procedure - The CPIO is a communicator of information based on existing records and is not required to create information or provide ongoing status updates. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on the recruitment process for Deputy Registrar at the National Law University, asserting incomplete information was provided.
Findings of Court:
The Commission upheld the PIO's responses, indicating all permissible information was adequately provided in accordance with the RTI Act.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the non-disclosure of interview marks and related documents was justified under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission found that the PIO had complied with the RTI Act, and the non-disclosure of specific information regarding third-party candidates was appropriate.
Result: The appeal was dismissed as being misconceived and untenable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant's contention regarding non-disclosure and compliance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of rti process and compliance are provided. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. upholding the pio's compliance with rti provisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 08.02.2024 seeking the following information:
“The Reply to the information sought vide application is not appropriate and information has not been provided. Therefore the applicant once again request that proper information may please be provided in reference to the 1st Appel under the RTI act, 2005:
1. a copy of the duly certified result for the post of Deputy Registrar as advertised by the NLU Delhi (with last date of submission as 05.08.2023) may please be provided. Copy of the final result, like Minutes of Selection Committee, etc. not provided by the PIO. The University is violating the RTI Act by not declaring the result on the website. The applicant within his rights as a Candidates of the Recruitment Process fully eligible to get the information. The RTI prescribes for giving no reasons to get information.
2. a copy of selection criteria for the post of Deputy Registrar may please be provided. Provided by the PIO.
3. a copy of marks-wise list of candidates (only selected for interview) for the post of Deputy Registrar may please be provided. written test marks and interview marks. Incomplete information provided. Interview marks list may please be shared.
4. a copy of weightage given to written test and interview for the cost of Deputy Registrar may please be provided. Information not provided by the PIO. FAA to please provide the information.
5. a copy of wait list cand-dates for the post of Deputy Registrar mas please be provided. Information can be provided as per Shri Malla Krislitta Rao JIPMER Puducherry in F. No CIC YA/A/2015/001954 and many other decisions. The Supreme Court has also held that this information falls under Section 4 (i.e. Mandatory Disclosure). The University is violating the RTI Act by not declaring the result on the website. Thea applicant being one of the Candidates is not a third party.”
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2024 stating as under:
“1. Information is attached as Annexure-I.
2 . Information is attached as Annexure-II.
3 . The marks of selected candidates for interview were displayed on the University Website for public domain. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I.
4 . Information is attached as Annexure-III.
5 . It is third party information.”
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.03.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 04.04.2024, held as under.
“1. By this order I propose to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant Mr. Deepak Kapoor against the order of PIO to his application under the RTI Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2 . The PIO concerned is hereby ordered to provide the available information to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
3 . The appellant be informed of the order passed.”
4. In compliance of FAA’s order, the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 06.04.2024 to the appellant as under:
“Subject: FAA ORDER dated 04.04.2024 with reference to RTI Appeal NLAWU/A/2024/60003 of Mr. Deepak Kapoor dated 01.03.2024.
In pursuance of the above mentioned order of the FAA NLU Delhi, please find below herewith the requisite information pertaining to National Law University Delhi:
1. The information available in public domain on the University website.
2. Information has already been provided to the candidate.
3. The written test marks obtained by all the applicants for the post of Deputy Registrar was displayed on the University website. Copy enclosed as Annexure-I. The written test was only for shortlisting candidates for interview. The final selection was done on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per rules. The applicant was not recommended by
