##PAGE1##

के(cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:6981), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/604586

Ashok Kumar .….अपीलकता(cid:6981)/Appellant

VERSUS बनाम

The CPIO CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,

RTI CELL, INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX, SECTOR - 23, PHASE-I, DWARKA,

NEW DELHI – 110077 ….(cid:7079)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of Decision : 24.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 06.12.2024 CPIO replied on : 24.12.2024 First appeal filed on : 02.01.2025 First Appellate Authority’s order : 17.01.2025

2nd Appeal dated : Nil

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2024 seeking the following information:

“Copy of Advertisement, No. of Applications received thereon records of selection process including the copies on minutes and file notings regarding appointment of Ms. Moushumi Sarkar, Deputy Secretary,

CBSE, in the services of CBSE”

Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.12.2024 stating as under:

“The information sought is not clear/specific. Further, the information sought is 'personal information' related to a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the disclosure of such information is exempted under Section

8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 17.01.2025, upheld the 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: Shri Ashok Kumar present through audio conference.

Respondent: Shri Kunal Kumar, US/PIO present in person.

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

6. Appellant remained absent in the NIC studio for hearing, therefore, with the assistance of Registry opportunity has been granted to plead this matter through audio-call. On being contacted through phone-call, the Appellant pleaded that he has filed complaint against the concerned officer before CVC and the CVC sought the basis and relevant related documents in support of his complaint. Hence, to attach supporting papers with his complaint he filed the RTI application in question, however, the Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that his request for information has been denied by the CPIO and FAA under

Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. CPIO submitted that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to appointment of the third-party office, disclosure of which would apparently invade her privacy, therefore, the request of information has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the CPIO

agreed to abide the directions of the Commission.

Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

Decision:

8. Heard the parties.

9. Upon perusal of the materials of this Appeal placed on record and hearing both the parties, the Commission observed that main premise of instant Appeal was denial of request for information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On the other hand, the CPIO stated that information sought by the Appellant pertains to appointment related details of the third-party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, therefore, reply from the CPIO and FAA was provided to the Appellant on the

same lines.

10. The Commission observed that complete denial for request for information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information regarding the details of advertisement regarding appointment of Ms. Moushmi Sarkar and the total number of application received are generic information, disclosure of which will not attract exemption under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This fact was apprised to the CPIO dur