Personal information like interview marks exempt under S.8(1)(j) RTI Act unless larger public interest shown; privacy prevails over disclosure in recruitment processes.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) Please inform the number of post, declared for Scale V to scale VI.

2) Please provide us the marks of all the candidates appeared in the interview process, in the following format:

3) Name & Designation (along with mobile numbers and email id) of the Members from Outside (Outside Expert) in the Interview Committee be provided.

4) Whether Interview Committee awarded the marks at the time of interview or at later stages, as per conveniences.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1: Number of Post declared for Scale V to Scale -VI in the promotion process 2024-25 is 53 (52 for Mainstream +1 for technical stream).

2: The information sought is being third party information and exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005, hence may not be provided.

3: The Name of the outside experts are:

1. Nand Lal Dhameja

2. Ashok Kumar Garg

Other desired information is personal information, hence can't be shared.

4: The information sought is in the form of query and not covered u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence the same cannot be provided.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 19.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.10.2024.

5. The appellant’s authorized representative Mr. Shailesh Kumar Jha attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kunal Chauhan, MGR-Law & Mr. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Chief Manager, attended the hearing in person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that she sought information on marks of candidates who appeared for interview, whether the interview committee awarded the marks at the time of interview or at later stage and the same were denied by the respondent U/s 8(1)(j), 2(f) of the RTI Act respectively. The appellant further submitted that the respondent could give the sought information without disclosing people’s names. Written submission dated 01.11.2025 filed by the appellant is taken on record. The appellant relied on following two cases: 1. Writ Petition No. 9648 of 2021, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay 2. Writ Petition No. 28768 of 2022, Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. [Both Judgments filed by appellant in Case No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/648495]

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the sought information on marks of candidates is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the point no. 4 is in the nature of query/clarification and hence not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Written submission dated 01.11.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

“Regarding Point No. 2 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought: "The marks of all the candidates who appeared in the interview process."

The information was not provided as it pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest. Furthermore, no larger public interest justifies its disclosure. Hence, it is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Regarding Point No. 4 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought: "Whether the interview committee awarded the marks at the time of the interview or at a later stage as per convenience."

The query is vague and lacks specificity. I