A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC: FAA’s order set aside holding that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind; Personal details including educational qualification of other candidates is held by UPSC in as fiduciary, exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

Respondent: From where 'Ajit Newspaper' got the said documentary evidence is not on record; While the PIO was providing the information, RTI applicant repeated communications - CIC: It casts immense pressure on CPIOs to provide the correct deduction

Enquiry findings in relation to the complaints were denied u/s 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) - CIC: PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking Section 10; Provide broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint

Information about PMO such as Anti-corruption unit in the PMΟ, generic mail ID, complaints of corruption against Public Servants, SOP followed for PMs photographs, speeches, interviews and bio-data etc. - CIC: Appropriate information has been provided

Information about pay scale PGT teachers working with Universal Public School - Appellant: Documents provided to him are not attested or certified by the PIO - CIC: Respondent to provide certified copies of relevant information free of charge to Appellant

Documents about recruitment of Data Entry Operators was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: In the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions and in the absence of the larger public interest, no scope of intervention in the matter

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Degree of an individual is personal and does not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act

Inordinate delay in the hearing and disposal of second appeals

Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: FAA’s order set aside holding that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind; Personal details including educational qualification of other candidates is held by UPSC in as fiduciary, exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

4 Oct, 2025

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. With respect to Advt 03/2024 for two post of Administrative officer GR-I in NAVY, plzz provide following information

A) What is the expected date of exam? Will there be RT or direct interview for this post?

B) With respect to eligibility criteria for Administrative officer gr-I , is there any criteria of pay level that only people above pay level 6/7 will be considered as supervisory capacity? if there is any such criteria regarding pay level, plzz provide detailed information.

C) Who will be considered as working in supervisory capacity?

D) Is scrutiny of application received under process or Completed? Plzz provide detail of shortlisted people for exam/interview?

E) What will be the syllabus of examination (RT)?

F) plzz provide pdf of requisition received from NAVY/CONCERNED DEPT for Recruitment for Above mentioned post.

2. Plzz provide information that whether any department/ministry has given requisition for conducting RT for which eligibility criteria will be Simple Graduation? Plzz provide details if such requisition is received and Advertisement is not published yet.

3. With respect to APFC exam conducted recently for 159 post, plzz provide following information: A) Rank , Name and marks secured by all 159 candidates separately in RT and interview and total aggregate marks

4. With respect to ALC exam conducted recently for 29 post, plzz provide following information A) Rank , Name and marks secured by all 29 candidates separately in RT and Interview and total aggregate marks

5. Rank, name and marks secured by candidates for LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (42 post) separately in RT and interview and total aggregate Rank wise. Plzz provide educational qualification of candidates also. …, etc./ other related information.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“The point wise information for the post of ALC(JTS) and APFC pertaining to SPC-I Section as under:

Point No. 3(A): Disclosure of personal details/information of other candidates held by the Commission in a fiduciary relationship is exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As such information sought cannot be shared.

Point No. 4(A): It is stated that the matter is sub-judice as the matter is pending in the Hon’ble CAT, Delhi. Hence, the information as sought by you cannot be provided at this stage.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2024 stated as under: -

“The RTI request, the CPIO's response, and the subsequent appeal have been reviewed. In this regard, it is submitted that:

a. The Appellant, in Point No. 3 of the request, sought the rank, name, and marks of the successful 159 candidates in the written test and interview with respect to 159 vacancies for the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour & Employment [Advt No. 51/2023, Vacancy No. 23025102725]. The recruitment process for this post has been completed, and details such as the names of the recommended candidates, marks, cut-off marks, total marks, etc. have already been published on the Commission’s website. The same may be referred by the Appellant.

b. The Appellant, in Point No. 4 of the request, sought the rank, name, and marks of the successful candidates in the written test and interview for the 29 posts of Junior Time Scale (JTS) Grade of Central Labour Service (Group ‘A’ Organized Service) consisting of the of the posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour & Employment [ADVERTISEMENT NO. 21/2022, VACANCY NO. 22112106412]. The Combined recruitment test for the aforesaid posts was held on 20.08.2023. The interviews for the 29 posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)/JTS were held from 05.03.2024 to 08.03.2024 and the final result was declared on 21.03.2024. However, due to a pending case, viz. OA No. 100/1973/2024, currently before the Hon’ble CAT, PB, New Delhi, the disclosure of marks information to candidates is on hold until the case is finalized. Given this situation, the reply of the CPIO seems to be in order.

c. The Appellant, in Point No. 5 of the request, sought information with respect to the post of 42 posts of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) in Office of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour & Employment [ADVERTISEMENT NO. 17/2022, VACANCY NO. 22091708410]. No information has been provided by the CPIO(SPC-I) with respect to the aforesaid point. Therefore, CPIO(SPC-I) may be directed to furnish appropriate reply with respect to Point No. 5 of the request to the Appellant, within 20 days of the receipt of this directive.”

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

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Khaling T. M Under Secretary attended the hearing in person.

6. The respondent while defending their case, in addition to their initial reply, relied upon their latest submissions with respect to point nos 3, 4 and 5 of the RTI application, extracted below:

“Point No. 3:- Marks of all selected candidates are already uploaded on website of the Commission, it can be viewed through given link:- (https://upsc.gov.in/recruitment/recruitment-test/result-details/archives); however, other details of the candidates i.e. separate marks in written test and interview cannot be provided as disclosure of personal details/information of other candidates held by the Commission is a fiduciary relationship and is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2025.

Point No. 4 & 5:-. In recruitment cases where a Recruitment Test has been conducted and the matter is sub-judice before any Court, with directions from the Hon'ble Court to keep the result of the petitioner(s) in a sealed cover, the Commission does not upload the cut-off marks and marks-related details of any candidate on the official website of the Commission till the matter is not disposed off. Since, the requisite information cannot be provided at this stage. In relation to point No. 5, for providing the educational details of candidates, it is stated that disclosure personal of details/information of other candidates held by the Commission is a fiduciary relationship and is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2025.”

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO vide letters dated 07.10.2024 and Nil/08/2025. Further, perusal of the FAA’s order reveals that the directions for disclosure of information on point no. 5 of the RTI application were passed without application of mind, although the appellant had sought personal details including educational qualification of other candidates. Accordingly, the FAA’s order is set aside. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rahul Kumar Pathak v. Union Public Service Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2024/650667; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025

CIC: FAA’s order set aside holding that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind; Personal details including educational qualification of other candidates is held by UPSC in as fiduciary, exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.