के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/NTAGN/A/2025/606747 Asad Javed Khan .….अपीलक VERSUS बनाम PIO, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, RTI CELL, RTI CELL, FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110020 ….प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 27.12.2024 CPIO replied on : 23.01.2025 First appeal filed on : 27.01.2025 First Appellate Authority’s order : 30.01.2025

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : N.A.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2024 seeking the following information:-

“I am a qualified candidate of Rani lakshmi bal central agricultural universityjhansi Recruitment of Non teaching post2023 POST name- Upper division clerk. My details are Name-Asad javed khan, Roll No.- MP06010342,App No.-UDC488,cat-OBC result of qualified candidates for DV of the above exam was declared by you on NTA website via public notice 02/08/24(pdf attached). Total 73 candidates were qualified for UDC Post as per Anex-1. kindly provide me below three points information under RTH

1)a copy of the marks list of all 73 qualified candidates of UDC Post Roll No. wise. (ie marks scored in the NTA CBT exam)

2)a copy of the skill test result of all three module i.e. word, excel and ppt of mine conducted on 05/09/24.

3)a copy of typing test result/transcripts of mine conducted on 05/09/24.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.01.2025 stating as under:-

“ Information sought may not be provided under section 8(1) of RTI Act

2005. please visit website.”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 30.01.2025, upheld reply of the CPIO.

4. Challenging the FAA’s order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Joydeep Das, Consultant present in person.

5. Written statement of the PIO is taken on record.

6. Respondent submitted that request for information was initially denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC a revised reply was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.02.2025 stating as under -

(a) The information sought pertains to third-party personal information and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(b) Skill Tests not conducted by NTA, hence applicant may contact concerned University.

(c) Typing test/transcripts not conducted by NTA, hence applicant may contact concerned University.”

7. Respondent explained that for point (1) the Appellant has sought marks list of 73 candidates which relates to preliminary exams and also pertains to personal information of third-parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Even otherwise, the selection process is yet to be completed as per his knowledge. For point No. (2) and (3), Respondent further explained that no skill test are conducted by NTA, therefore, no question for such results arise.

8. The Bench brought to the attention of the CPIO towards a recent judgement of Hon’ble High of Bombay in the case titled Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (Writ Petition No.9648 OF 2021) decided on 11.11.2024 which was further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the SLP No. 2783/2025 vide order dated 07.02.2025, wherein it was held that the merit list and marks of selected candidates under Public Recruitment Exams cannot be denied to the applicants under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for the reason that the marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be