के Û(cid:289)(cid:547)य सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,(cid:91) म(cid:467)ु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:465)दãल(cid:547), New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/IGNOU/A/2025/112850 ASHOK KUMAR SONI .….अपीलकता(cid:91)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम THE CPIO INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, RTI CELL, MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI-110068 ….(cid:292)(cid:467)तवाद(cid:547)गण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date of Decision : 25.03.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 06.01.2025 CPIO replied on : 13.01.2025 First appeal filed on : 23.01.2025 First Appellate Authority’s order : 23.01.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.04.2025 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2025 seeking the following information:

“(cid:467)नवेदन है (cid:873)क इं(cid:465)दरा गांधी राç(cid:282)(cid:547)य मÈु त (cid:874)वæव(cid:874)व(cid:622)यालय म(cid:581) सन ् 2017 म(cid:581) अनूसू(cid:876)चत जा(cid:467)त (एससी) वग (cid:91) से बेचलर आफ एजुके शन (बीएड) उ(cid:419)ीण (cid:91)

प(cid:464)र¢ा(cid:876)थय(cid:91) (cid:585) क(cid:551) नाम, पता, स(cid:465)हत सूची स×या(cid:874)पत (cid:292)मा(cid:872)णत (cid:292)(cid:467)त म(cid:581) (cid:292)दान करने

क(cid:551) मह(cid:467)त कृपा कर(cid:581)।”

2. The CPIO denied the request for information to the Appellant on

13.01.2025 under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 23.01.2025, stating as under-

“Reply - The appeal of Mr. Ashok Kumar Soni, R/o WARD NO 32, NEW MINUS QTR GODRIPARA, POST-GODRIPARA, CITY- CHIRIMIRI DIST-M.C.B C.G, Pin:497555 (Hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) is received under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005.

On-going through the records, it is seems that the information provided by the CPIO, in respect of the RTI reply dated 13.01.2025 was appropriate in order. However, considering the appeal of the appellant following additional information is provided.

The information cannot be provided to any other person other than the person about whom the information is being sought as it amounts to third party information. However, the person concerned has the right to seek information himself/ herself as a citizen of India.”

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 Soni present through video conference.

Respondent: Dr. Jagram Meena, AR/CPIO along with Shri Gyan Prakash Kujur, ASO present in person.

5. The Appellant stated the request for disclosure of information regarding, name, address and other details of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste who have passed B.Ed. from Respondent Public Authority was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 ignoring the fact that it pertains to larger public interest.

6. CPIO submitted that details of passed candidates including their personal records as sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, disclosure of which invade the privacy of third party individual. Accordingly, the information was denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j)

of the RTI Act, 2005.

Decision:

7. Heard the parties.

8. After adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the Commission finds that the denial of request for disclosure of Information by the CPIO of the Appellant regarding personal details of candidates belonging to SC category who successfully completed B.Ed course from IGNOU under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, is rightly based on the reason that such records as sought in the RTI Application pertains to personal information of third party and would tantamount to invasion of the Right to Privacy, which is exempted from disclosure under the said relevant provision of