##PAGE1##

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/NRALF/A/2024/634357

Brij Bhushan Sharma .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS

बनाम C.P.I.O,

Northern Railway O/o the Divisional Railway Manager,

Station Road, Cantt. Area, Firozpur - 152 001 ….(cid:366)ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 25-03-2026 Date of Decision : 25-03-2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 18-04-2024 CPIO replied on : 16-05-2024 First appeal filed on : 20-05-2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 23-06-2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09-08-2024

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18-04-2024 seeking the following information:

“रेल (cid:874)वभाग के प(cid:287) सÉं या 220-E/open mkt/ RRC/CEN 01/2019/Panel-FZR (cid:465)दनाकं 26.04.2023 के अनुसार फ(cid:551)रोजपुर मडंल म(cid:581) मई 2023 को इकॉनॉ(cid:871)मक वीकर सेÈशन के तहत पद Assistant TL&AC (level-1 of 7th CPC) पर (cid:467)नयुÈत उàमीदवार(cid:585) क(cid:551) स×या(cid:874)पत सूची सूचना के अ(cid:876)धकार अ(cid:876)ध(cid:467)नयम 2005 क(cid:551) धारा 6(i) के तहत (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रत अव(cid:876)ध म(cid:581) आवेदक को

उपलÞध कराई जाए।

CIC/NRALF/A/2024/634357 Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

(उàमीदवार का नाम, (cid:874)पता का नाम और èथायी पता स(cid:465)हत) (copy enclosed)”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16-05-2024 stating as under:

“In Reference to above, as per RTI para 8(J) and 2(F) your representation dt is not covered under RTI Act-2005 being Questioning/ Clarification/ 3rd

party information.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-05-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 23-06-2024 stating as under:

“In reference to above, Reply already provided to you vide this office letter no. RTI/1/RC/FZR dt. 16.05.2024 stands good.”

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.

Respondent: Shri Vas Dev, APO & APIO present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent

confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him and the same was wrongly denied to him. He stated that he has sought generic information, which can be provided

under the RTI Act.

8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 16.05.2024, they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought is personal information of third-

CIC/NRALF/A/2024/634357 Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

9. The Commission has carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions made by both parties, and the records available on file. At the outset, the Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to the list of candidates appointed under a specified panel, which is essentially a matter of public record relating to recruitment in a Public Authority. While the Respondent has denied the information by invoking provisions relating to third-party personal information, the Commission finds that such denial is not wholly justified.

10. It is a settled position under the RTI Act that disclosure of names of selected/appointed candidates in public employment does not, per se constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, particularly when such information relates to a public activity like recruitment. Transparency in

public appointments is a key component of accountability.

11. However, the Commiss