SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3212

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Rajesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Department Of Posts – Respondent
CIC/POSTS/A/2024/653358



##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/INAVY/A/2024/631665

Ravi Kumar Das ….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

The CPIO,

Headquarters, Western Naval Command

Ballard Pier, Tiger Gate

Near Naval Dockyard

Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400423

Date of Hearing : 06.03.2026

Date of Decision : 09.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 12.04.2024

CPIO replied on : 02.05.2024

First appeal filed on : 31.05.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : 14.06.2024

2nd Appeal dated : 25.07.2024

Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

##PAGE2##

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2024 seeking the

following information:

1) With due respect I would like to seek information regarding

Departmental Qualifying Examination for the promotion to the

grade of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) from Group 'C' Employees in

the grade pay of Rs 1800/-held on 13 Oct 2016 as under: -

(a) Please provide the answer sheet of the following candidate are

mentioned in HQWNC Letter NO CS/I/3300/IV dated 06 Jun

2017:-

Sno Roll Name and Designation Category Units

No

49 067 Shri S B Pandagle, Peon SC HQWNC

62 037 Shri Sunil Kumar ,Peon SC IHQ/DLS

157 076 Shri R R Paswan, T/Mate SC NSRY(Karwar)

173 085 Shri R G More,Peon SC Vajrabahu

175 032 Shri Vanraj N Vaghela , SC Valsura

Peon

176 039 Shri S T Nanjare, T/Mate SC Valsura

29 122 Shri M K Meena, Peon ST DWarka

43 061 Shri S H Nandagevi, Peon ST HQKNA

109 031 Shri V D Meena, Peon ST NAI, Delhi

18 135 Shri Krishna Rawate, Peon ST Asvini

2) Further, if sought information of para 1(a) ibid is not given, then

please kindly provide provision of RTI Act- 2005 and attested copies

of relevant documents based on which refusal to provide sought

information”

2. The CPIO Commander Urmila Bhatt transferred the RTI application to APIO

(Civ) Office of CCPO Headquarters, Western Naval Command, Ballard Pier,

Near Tiger Gate Naval Dockyard, Mumbai on dated 15.04.2024 stating as

under:

“The information sought in the above mentioned RTI application is

closely related to your office. It is therefore, requested that a suitable

reply to the said application be forwarded directly to the applicant,

Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

##PAGE3##

under intimation to this office. In case it does not pertain to your

office, the same may be transferred to the concerned Area PIO under

section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005, under intimation to this office and

the applicant”.

The APIO (Civ) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.05.2024 stating

as under:

“The information sought is confidential' in nature which contain

personal information of large number 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 dated 31.05.2024. The

FAA order dated 14.06.2024 states as under:

“It is intimated that the information sought vide your RTI

application dated 15 Apr 24 is 'confidential' in nature which contain

personal information of large number of third parties, the disclosure

of which would not serve any large public interest. The information

is, therefore, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of RTI

Act, 2005. Hence, it is not feasible to provide photocopies of answer

sheets of written examination of all candidates.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission

with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Mr. Ravi Kumar Das

Respondent: Capt. Gaurav Mahajan, Indian Navy, 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 the information sought in RTI

application pertains to the examination conducted for promotion to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top