In public recruitment, the disclosure of names and marks of selected candidates after the selection process concludes is mandatory, as such information does not constitute personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 7(1), 8(1)(j), 10 and 18 - Public Recruitment - Disclosure of marks and names of selected candidates - Transparency in selection process - CPIO denied information regarding marks and lists of candidates claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) - Commission observed that recruitment for public posts is a public activity and must be transparent - Once the selection process is over, marks and names of successful candidates are not personal information protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) - CPIO directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised reply in line with transparency standards - Complaint allowed. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The Complainant applied for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) at IIM Bodh Gaya. After a candidate was selected and subsequently resigned, the Complainant sought details regarding the selection process, attendance, marks, and the waiting list status. The CPIO failed to respond within the stipulated time and later denied information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Commission.

Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the public recruitment process must be transparent. Denial of candidate names and marks after completion of the process is not justified under Section 8(1)(j). The CPIO's failure to provide a timely and reasoned reply is noted with concern.

Issues: Whether the CPIO was justified in denying the list of candidates and their marks obtained in a public recruitment process under the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment for public posts is a public activity. Disclosure of names and marks of selected candidates after the selection process is concluded constitutes a promotion of transparency and accountability, and such information does not qualify as 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).

Result: Complaint disposed of with directions to the CPIO to provide a revised reply.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the complaint against iim bodh gaya regarding rti denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. cic's jurisdiction under section 18 is limited to identifying mala-fide intent in rti procedural failures. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. public recruitment results, including marks and names, must be transparently disclosed post-selection. (Para 10 , 11)

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 02.08.2024

CPIO replied on : NA

First appeal filed on : 27.11.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : NA

Complaint dated : 28.03.2025

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2024 seeking the following information:

“1. Applications were invited for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Administration and Hindi Language) under Advertisement Number: Advertisement: NT 2023 02 F dated 22 February 2023 advertised by your institute. In reference to which, how many candidates were selected to appear in the examination conducted for the said post? Please provide a list of their names.

2. On which date was the written examination conducted for the above mentioned post and how many candidates appeared in the said examination, provide a certified copy related to their attendance.

3. In how many stages was the examination conducted for the said post conducted and how many marks were fixed to pass the first stage written examination? Please provide a certified copy related to this.

4. How many candidates passed the first stage of the written examination conducted for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Administration and Hindi Language)? Please provide a certified copy of the list of their names.

5. How many marks were there in the first stage and second stage of the written examination conducted for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Administration and Hindi Language) respectively?

6. Please provide a certified copy of the marks obtained by the candidates who passed the first stage written examination.

7. How many candidates were selected for the second stage written examination? Please provide a certified copy related to this.

8. Please provide a certified copy of the marks obtained by the candidates who appeared in the second stage written examination?

9. How many marks were fixed by the selection committee to pass the second stage written examination? Please provide a certified copy related to this.

10. Please tell the name of the candidate selected for the post of AAO (Administration and Hindi Language)? Please provide a photocopy of the appointment letter related to the said appointment.

11. Has the candidate selected by the institute for the said post taken charge of the said post?

12. Please provide complete details of the members of the Selection Committee constituted for the Institute for the selection of the post of AAO(Administration and Hindi Language) along with their designations.

13. Provide a certified copy of the consolidated final marks list of the written examination of both the stages conducted by the Selection Committee for the post of AAO (Administration and Hindi Language), in which the signature of each member of the Selection Committee is mandatory.

14. After the resignation of the officer appointed to the post of AAO (Administration and Hindi Language), has the appointment letter been issued to the candidate mentioned in the waiting list as per the rules mentioned in the Office Memorandum No. 41019/18/97 Estt (B) dated 13.06.2000 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India regarding appointment? If not, what are the reasons for it?”

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2024.The FAA order is not on record.

3. Aggrieved by the non-adjudication of First Appeal, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Shri Prashant Tiwari presen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3955

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONSudha Rani Relangi, Information CommissionerPrashant Tiwari – AppellantVersusCpio Indian Institute Of Management Bodh Gaya – RespondentCIC/IIMBG/C/2025/614827

In public recruitment, the disclosure of names and marks of selected candidates after the selection process concludes is mandatory, as such information does not constitute personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner
Prashant Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Cpio Indian Institute Of Management Bodh Gaya – Respondent
CIC/IIMBG/C/2025/614827