के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/ISERP/A/2024/633070 Ajay Ramesh Kawale … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO:

Indian Institute of Science Education and …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Research Pune, Maharashtra Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 21.03.2024 FA : 18.04.2024 SA : 25.07.2024 CPIO : 18.04.2024 FAO : 16.05.2024 Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Disclose marks of written examination of the candidates who have appeared for the Advertisement No: 64/2023 for the post of Library and Information Assistant @ IISER Pune

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Marks obtained by other candidates falls under personal information disclosure of which is exempted as per section 8(1)(j) the RTI Act 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.05.2024 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 25.07.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sreejit Marar, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to other candidates (third-parties), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 18.04.2024. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the personal information of other candidates (third parties), disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted inva