Central Information Commission
Sunny Chandel vs Malavya National Institute Of ... on 11 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MNITJ/A/2024/609485+
CIC/MNITJ/A/2024/608751
Sunny Chandel ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Malaviya National Institute of Technology ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
(MNIT),
Jaipur
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 609485 01.01.2024 25.01.2024 25.01.2024 22.02.2024 Nil
2. 608751 25.12.2023 19.01.2024 22.01.2024 09.02.2024 28.02.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 03.06.2025
Date of Decision: 11.06.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed two RTI applications dated 01.01.2024 & 25.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
In reference to the advertisement. No.: AES/MNIT/ESTT/2023/01 Dated 22.03.2023 published by MNIT, Jaipur for recruitment on various posts like superintendent, senior Page 1 of 6 assistant etc. The exam for the above-mentioned posts was conducted in two stages. The first stage of the same was held on 22.09.23 by NTA at Noida. Result of stage -1 was declared on 18.11.23. Stage -2 was conducted by MNIT, Jaipur itself on 27.11.23. Now the final result of the said exam is declared today (21.12.23). In this regard I want to know the replies of the following questions
1) Please provide raw and normalised score of all the candidates who have appeared in stage -2 for the post of superintendent.
Note-raw score-stage-1 score exam conducted by NTA and normalised score is final score including both the stages marks separately.
2) Please provide the post-wise and category-wise write up/cutoff for all the post for which result has been declared.
3) Please provide the name & marks (stage-wise) of the selected candidates in the final list.
Second Appeal No. CIC/MNITJ/A/2024/609485
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1 & 3: The sought information contains personal and third-party information which is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j). However, the details of marks of candidates recommended for the post of Superintendent is placed al Annexure-
A. 2: The cut-off marks of all the posts is placed at Annexure-B. 2.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.2. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 2 of 6Second Appeal No. CIC/MNITJ/A/2024/608751
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point-wise and category wise cut off w.r.t. Advt. No. AES/MNIT/ESTT/2023/01 dated 22.03.2023.
For Superintendent Post-
Category Cut off Marks UR 151.5 OBC 141.8 EWS 142 ST 136.60 PWD-UR 120.6 For Technician Post- Category Cut off Marks UR 146.30 ST 143.50 For Senior Assistant Post- Category Cut off Marks UR 149 EWS 137.8 For Junior Assistant Post- Category Cut off Marks SC 145.5 EWS 138.7 For Office Attendant/Lab Assistant Post- Category Cut off Marks UR 140.50 OBC 133 EWS 131.90 ST 115.70 PWD-OBC 116.10 Page 3 of 6 3.1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 22.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.2. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.02.2024.
4. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. R.K Mahjiwal, Dy. Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought on point no. 1 to 3 of the RTI application pertained to the other candidates (third- party), 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. However, cut off mark categories-wise had been furnished to the appellant on 19.01.2024 and 25.01.2024. Further, all details except names have been disclosed as per the practice of the Institute.
6. 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 replies to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated 19.01.2024 and 25.01.2024. The Commission notes that on point no. 1 and 3, the appellant has sought for the personal information of other candidates (third party), disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, thus, the CPIO denied the information u/s 8 (1) (h) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, the information sought should have been denied only u/s Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 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 Page 4 of 6 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 invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
7. Further, 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, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 11.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), CPIO, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur - 302017
2. Sunny Chandel Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)