Marks and cutoffs of selected candidates in public recruitment processes are not exempt personal information under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j); disclosure mandated for transparency and public interest.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 4, 8(1)(j), 11 - Disclosure of marks obtained by successful candidates in public recruitment process - Marks of selected candidates at each stage of selection (CBT, Group Discussion, Interview) and category-wise cutoff marks not exempt as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) - Selection process being public activity commencing with public advertisement, disclosure ensures transparency, fairness and accountability - No unwarranted invasion of privacy - PIO directed to provide marks and cutoffs for specified fields; recorded reasons for non-selection, if any, to be furnished - Public authority advised to proactively disclose selection details on website under Section 4. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 14, 16)

(B) RTI Act, 2005 - "Why" queries - Information not including answers to questions beginning with "why" as clarified by DoPT OM dated 20.05.2011 - PIO to state if no recorded reasons available for non-qualification. (Paras 3, 14)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought under RTI: (1) marks of successful candidates from CBT stage to final selection, (2) cutoff marks for all fields, (3) reasons for no candidate qualified in specified field pursuant to public advertisement. CPIO denied citing Section 8(1)(j) as third-party personal information, upheld by FAA. Second appeal restricted to two fields.

Findings of Court:
PIO directed to furnish revised reply within four weeks with marks of selected candidates, category-wise cutoffs and recorded reasons (or state absence thereof) for specified fields; compliance report required.

Issues: Whether marks/cutoffs of candidates in public recruitment qualify as exempt personal information under Section 8(1)(j); validity of denial of reasons for non-selection.

Ratio Decidendi: Marks in public recruitment not personal information as process is public activity requiring transparency; disclosure promotes public confidence, overriding privacy claims - Relied on High Court judgments holding selection details disclosable.

Result: Second appeal allowed; directions issued for disclosure.

Table of Content
1. rti application details and responses (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant's arguments for disclosure (Para 5)
3. respondent's exemption under section 8(1)(j) (Para 6 , 7)
4. recruitment marks as public activity (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. high court precedents favor transparency (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. direct marks and reasons disclosure ordered (Para 14)
7. proactive disclosure of recruitment data advised (Para 15 , 16)

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. List of marks of all successful candidates of CBT held on 15/07/2023 who were called for the Group Discussion and Interview right from the stage of CBT held on 15/07/2023 to the stage of final selection.

2. Cutoff marks Of all the fields for which the said advertisement was released.

3. Reasons why there is no candidate qualified for P&A.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. The information is exempted to be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The matter regarding providing marks of other candidates are settled by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in its various orders including Vinay Arora V/s UPSC, File No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/ 122611, date of hearing 19.07.2018 and in Siddharth Kumar Nim vs. Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India, File No. CIC/CPCOI/A/2018/137114, date of decision 21.11.2019, wherein the Commission has observed that the information sought under RTI application relates to marks obtained by other candidates in the examinations is personal information relating to third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and disclosure of such information is exempted under Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. The selection and shortlisting criteria is provided in the Recruitment Rules for Executives of the Company. The Recruitment rules for Executives of the Company are available in the RTI section of our corporate website www.mstcindia.co.in for information of all concerned.

3. The information sought by you is not falling under the definition of 'information' under S. 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It may also be noted that the DoPT vide its OM No. 1/7/2009-IR dated 20/05/2011, clarified that information sought cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why". Hence, unbale to furnish any information.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 13.08.2024 observed as under:-

1) The above-mentioned first appeal of Shri Somnath Sharma(hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant'), residing at XXXXX, has been received under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant, not being satisfied with the response of the CPIO regarding his request for information, which was sought via RTI application ref no. MSTCL/R/E/24/00054 dated 04/07/2024, has preferred the above first appeal under the RTI Act, 2005.

2) Upon reviewing the available records, it is observed that the CPIO initially provided an interim reply, followed by a final response to the appellant's RTI application, via letters ref no. MSTC/RTI/E/00064/2024-2025 dated 03.08.2024 and MSTC/RTI/E/00070/2024-2025 dated 06.08.2024, respectively, wherein the relevant information was furnished under the RTI Act, 2005.

3) For convenience, the final reply given by the CPIO, vide his letter ref no. MSTC/RTI/E/00070/2024-2025 dated 06.08.2024, is enclosed with this order.

Accordingly, the first appeal is disposed of.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.09.2024. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Shri Brajenddra Mohan Prasad, Addl. GM (P&T)/CPIO, Ms. Nishtha K. Munshi, Sr. Manager (P&A)/Nodal Officer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1150

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONP R Ramesh, CommissionerSomnath Sharma – AppellantVersusCPIO: MSTC Limited, Kolkata – RespondentSecond Appeal No. CIC/MSTCL/A/2024/641516

Marks and cutoffs of selected candidates in public recruitment processes are not exempt personal information under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j); disclosure mandated for transparency and public interest.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Somnath Sharma – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: MSTC Limited, Kolkata – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/MSTCL/A/2024/641516