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/UODEL/A/2025/100798 SAGAR KHANNA .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, MATA SUNDRI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, RTI CELL, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, MATA SUNDRI LANE, NEW DELHI-110002 ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 12.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 12.08.2024 First appeal filed on : 01.09.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 03.10.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.01.2025 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.07.2024 seeking the following information:

“1. Certified true copy of the question Paper of Mr. Sagar Khanna i.e. Roll No. MTS-LAB-167 as I participated in the examination held on 23rd day of November 2022.

2. Certified true copy of the question paper and answer-sheet of Ms. Harpreet Kaur (Selected candidate) i.e. Roll No. MTS- LAB-056 in the examination held on 23rd day of November 2022.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.08.2024 stating as under:-

“1. Information sought cannot be provided being sensitive information but you are allowed to inspect the Question Paper in the college premises on any working day with adequate prior intimation to the office.

2. That the information sought cannot be disclosed being exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, being personal Information.”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.10.2024 stated as under:-

“1. The CPIO is justified in its reply that "Information sought cannot be provided being sensitive information, but you - are allowed to inspect the question paper in the college premises on any working day with adequate prior intimation to the office".

Since it is their matter of policy that they we not provide certified true copies of the question paper of an examination, however, they allow the same to be inspected.

2. That the said denial under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was appropriate as the information sought is 'personal information' and purely information related to a third party, and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest is exempt under Section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Further, to disclose the copy of the question paper and answer sheet of the candidate who appeared in a particular examination, as it would be a greater invasion to the privacy of any third party if her question paper and answer sheet were disclosed to any other person other than her.”

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: Shri Sagar Khanna present in person.

Respondent: Shri Kapil Sharma, Off. SO (A/c.) along with Shri Srikant Samantara, Advocate present in person.

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

6. Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that he was one of the candidates appeared in the exams conducted by Respondent Public Authority for the post of MTS- Lab Attendant pursuant to an Advertisement dated 15.11.2021. He was not selected and one candidate, Ms. Harpreet Kaur was declared successful in the said exam. Appellant suspects irregularity in the selection as the selected candidate, as per Appellant’s version was directly known to an officer of the College. To clarify the doubt the Appellant in previous occasion filed RTI application and obtained copy of his own Answer Sheet, where he noticed some anomaly. Therefore, through present RTI application, he sought copy of his own question paper along with question paper and answer sheet of the selected candidate. Appellant pleaded that information sought was denied by the PIO in an arbitr