Central Information Commission
Abhishek Yadav vs National High Speed Rail Corporation ... on 13 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NHRCL/A/2024/645423
Abhishek Yadav .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd.
5th to 7th Floors, Tower D,
World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 029 .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13-05-2026
Date of Decision : 13-05-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04-08-2024
CPIO replied on : 03-09-2024
First appeal filed on : 06-09-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 26-09-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13-10-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04-08-2024 seeking the following information:
"Information sought is regarding DGM/HR post against Advt. No. 17/2023 are as under:
a) No. of application received for the said post.
b) No. of candidates appeared for the written examination schedule on 20 Jan 2024.
c] No of candidates qualified in the written examination and called for the interview.
CIC/NHRCL/A/2024/645423 Page 1 of 5d) Category wise cut-off & maximum marks for the written examination of all the qualified candidates.
e) Marks obtained by me i.e. for roll no.: 221030085 in the written examination.
f) Final score along with breakup of written and interview marks of candidates appeared in the interview including provisionally selected and waitlisted candidates."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03-09-2024 stating as under:
"a. 31 applications.
b. 24 candidates.
c. 24 candidates qualified in the Written Examination. 05 candidates called for interview.
d. Details of cut-off and shortlisting criteria hosted on NHSRCL website under careers updates.
e. Marks obtained in CBT: 72.50 out of 100.
f. As per clause 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, personal information other than applicant are exempted from disclosure."
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06-09-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 26-09-2024 stating as under:
"
S. Information Sought Reply to RTI Reply to First Appeal No. 1 Query in RTI: 24 candidates qualified The list hosted on NHSRCL website on No. of candidates qualified in the in Written Examination. 07.08.2024, is the expanded list of written examination and called candidates called for document for the interview. verification and not the candidates 05 candidates called for called for interview.
Query in Appeal: interview.
The Notice dated 15.04.24 Out of 08 candidates called for
indicated name of 05 candidates, document verification 03 candidates
while for the Notice dated were not fulfilling the advertised
07.08.24 is reflecting names of criteria/absent.
08 candidates, post to issue of
final result dated 30.07.24. Since, Hence, only 05 candidates are called for
there was no intimation interview which is in line with the ratio
regarding increase of vacancy
CIC/NHRCL/A/2024/645423 Page 2 of 5
and change in candidate ratio of candidates to be considered for
(i.e. 1:5). Prima facie the interview.
Information factually incorrect.
Therefore, correct information
may be provided.
2 Query in RTI: Details of cut-off and Since, the said post to be filled on
Category wise cut-off & shortlisting criteria absorption basis from candidates
maximum marks for the written hosted on NHSRCL working in Central Public Sector
examination of all the qualified website under careers Undertakings/SPVs/Metro Railways
candidates. updates. reservation policy does not apply.
Query in Appeal: As per clause 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, personal
Category wise (i.e. SC, ST, OBC, information other than applicant are
UR) cut-off & maximum marks exempted from disclosure.
for the written examination of all
qualified candidates was sought
for which no information is
available on the website under
careers updates, wherein only
the qualifying criteria is
mentioned in Notice dated
15.04.2024 which was already
available in the notification
itself. Thus, the information
provided misleading. Therefore,
information is not provided and
still awaited.
3 Query in RTI: As per clause 8(1) (j) of Marks obtained by other candidates is
Final score along with break up RTI Act, personal personal information related to a third
of written and interview marks of information other than party, Hence, the disclosure of such
candidates appeared in the applicant are exempted information is exempted under section
interview including provisionally from disclosure. 8(1) (j) of the RTI act.
selected and waitlisted
candidates.
Query in Appeal:
The information sought is
statistical data without the
identity of candidates in raw
form. Thus, it didn't attract the
provision of clause 8(1)(j) of RTI
Act. The information sought
may be provide.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Mohit Lila, Executive Director, Ms. Sushma Gaur, GM/HR and Shri T Ram Manohar, DGM/HR present in person.CIC/NHRCL/A/2024/645423 Page 3 of 5
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.10.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on records has been provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 03.09.2024 and 26.09.2024.
Decision:
7. The Commission upon perusal of records and after hearing the submissions of the Respondent observes that an appropriate point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the CPIO vide letter dated 03.09.2024 and further clarified by the FAA vide order dated 26.09.2024.
8. The Commission notes that the Respondent has adequately explained that 24 candidates had qualified the written examination and only 05 candidates were ultimately called for interview, whereas the subsequent notice dated 07.08.2024 pertained to document verification and not interview. The clarification furnished by the FAA appears cogent and in consonance with the records.
9. With regard to disclosure of marks and score breakup of other candidates, the Commission finds merit in the contention of the Respondent that the same constitutes third-party personal information, disclosure of which is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant has also failed to establish any larger public interest warranting disclosure of such information.
10. The Commission further observes that the Appellant's own marks in the written examination were duly provided. As regards category-wise cut-off marks, the Respondent has clarified that reservation policy was not applicable for the said recruitment process as the post was to be filled on absorption basis from candidates working in Central Public Sector Undertakings/SPVs/Metro Railways.
11. In view of the foregoing, the Commission is satisfied and no intervention is warranted in the matter.CIC/NHRCL/A/2024/645423 Page 4 of 5
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd., 5th to 7th Floors, Tower D, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029 Abhishek Yadav CIC/NHRCL/A/2024/645423 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)