के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/INAVY/A/2024/126344 Mangal Premchand Gupta ….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent The CPIO Headquarters Western Naval Command, Ballard Pier Near Tiger Gate, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai-400001 Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of Decision : 16.03.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL Relevant facts emerging from second appeal:

RTI application filed on : 13.02.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 08.04.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 30.04.2024 Second Appeal dated : 27.08.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2024 seeking the following information:

“Requiring for entire records of proceedings of Interview for selection of ward Sahayika Dated 11/01/2007, which is as follow:-

(i) List of name of all the candidate who attended for the interview.

(ii) List of the rejected candidates with reasons for rejection (iii) List of candidates who passed physical test.

(iv) List of candidates who are recruited for the job on the basis of said interview.

(v) List of candidates kept in waiting list”.

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.03.2024 stating as under:

“The information sought contains personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which would not serve any larger public interest. The information is therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,2005”.

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 08.04.2024.

The FAA vide its order on 30.04.2024 stated as under:

“ Your RTI application dated 13 Feb 24, which was replied vide this Headquarters letter CS/APIO/1002 dated 13 Mar 24 is in order as the information sought contains large number of data pertaining to various individuals i.e. third-party information.

Further, you have sought information pertaining to recruitment of Ward Sahaika in 2006, which is more than 18 years old and hence, your claim of larger public interest does not justify.

This disposes of your First Appeal under reference”.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Mangal Premchand Gupta Respondent: Captain Gaurav Mahajan, CPIO

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that she had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Ward Sahayika and had sought complete records of the interview conducted on 11.01.2007. She stated that although she had qualified the process, the department did not provide her employment and therefore she sought the relevant records to ascertain the basis of selection and rejection of candidates.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant relates to recruitment records containing personal information of several candidates, which constitutes third-party information. Hence, the same was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent further submitted that the information pertains to a recruitment process conducted in the year 2006–2007, which is more than 18 years old, and therefore the appellant’s claim of larger public interest is not justified. It was also submitted that the Appellant had qualified the selection process but was lower in merit and therefore could not be selected.

8. Written submissions dated 11.03.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO is taken on record which states that the RTI application dated 13.02.2024 sought information regarding recruitment of Ward Sahayika in the year 2006. It is further submitted that Smt. Mangal Premchand Gupta filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2024. The First Appeal was disposed