Central Information Commission
Samrat Singh Rawat vs University Of Delhi on 24 February, 2026
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: 3 Cases.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/608486
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/608485
Samrat Singh Rawat .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Moti Lal Nehru College,
RTICell, University of Delhi,
Benito Juarez Marg, South
Campus, New Delhi - 110021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.02.2026
Date of Decision : 19.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note - The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together
for decision as the parties are common and the grounds raised by the
Appellant in these Second Appeals are similar in nature.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/608486
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 06.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 05.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.11.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.02.2025
Information sought:
Page 1 of 81. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2023 seeking the following information:-
"1. Details of the publications including name of journal, year of publication, journal volume, issue and page number considered for the promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department) for the post of Professor
2. Complete copy of all pages of the publications which were considered for the promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department) for the post of Professor.
3. Copy of Minutes of selection committee and all the documents related to the promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department) to the post of Professor.
4. Provide details of assessment period considered for the promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department) for the post of Professor
5. Details of the publications considered for the post of Professor for the promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department) which were from the period before joining Motilal Nehru College (M).
6. Copy of Complete reports of Screening Committee and minutes including objections, if any, for all meetings related to promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department) for the post of Professor.
7. For each and every publication considered for the post of Professor far the promotion of Dr. A. M. Khan (Chemistry Department), please provide the following for each and every publication:
(a) Copy of email/proof received on uploading/sending paper for review. Date and email ID should be clearly visible.
(b) Date of uploading/sending paper for review.
(c) Copy of comments received after review
(d) Date of uploading/sending revised paper after including reviewer comments.
(e) Copy of email/proof received on uploading/sending revised paper.
(f) Copy of email/Proof received on the acceptance of paper.
(g) Date of acceptance of the paper."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.06.2023 stating as under:-
Page 2 of 8"1. The college adheres to Section 8(i) (j) of RTI Act 2005 Publications/journals etc. are usually available on different journals website.
2 The college adheres to Section 8(i) (j) of RTI Act 2005. 3 As mentioned at point no.2 4 As mentioned at point no.2.
5 As mentioned at point no.1 6 As mentioned at point no.2 7 As mentioned at point no.2."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.11.2024, upheld reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds-
Research publications related information can never be personal information. Publications should be widely shared. What is the use of the research if it is not shared with other researchers? I would like to draw your attention towards Central Information Commission (CIC) Decisions:
(a) CIC/BS/A/2016/000133
(b) CIC/SB/A/2015/000433
(c) CIC/SH/A/2015/002235 In all above three CIC Decisions, leave record of the employee were disclosed to third parties. Similarly, in CIC Decision (CIC/MP/A/2015/001852), it was held that salary and allowances information also not come under personal information and same was disclosed to third party and in CIC decision (CIC/SS/A/2013/002542-YA) details of official tours were disclosed to the third party. Please take a note of CIC decision (CIC/SG/A/2012/001107/19129) in which it was held that even if the information is available on the website then also hardcopies must be provided by the PIO. In view of above, if personal leave record, salary, allowances and official tours does not fall under personal information then research publication related details can never be treated as personal information. Similarly, selection committee minutes, reports and minutes of screening committee, assessment period does not fall under personal information. Disclosure of larger public interest Dr. A. M. Khan did not qualify for the post of Professor. He got his publications published on back dates. On the date, he was appointed as Professor he did not have required number of publications to be promoted as Professor. He submitted false publications. Complaint for Page 3 of 8 the same is pending with Principal, Motilal College (Morning) for nearly two years. Several reminders are also sent to him. But till date no action has been taken. Dr. Khan is drawing salary for the post of Professor which he does not qualify. Public fund is being severely misused.
Moreover, students of the college are under impression that they are being taught by the Professor but in actual he does not qualify for the post of Professor. This is highly against the interest of the students. Dr. A. M. Khan has done fraud and therefore in larger public interest these frauds should be disclosed and he should be punished as per law.
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/608485 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 28.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 11.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.11.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.02.2025 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 seeking the following information:-
"1. Please provide complete leave record of Dr. A. M. Khan of Chemistry Department for last five years till date (21st July 2023) indicating the dates of leaves and nature of leave (EL/CL/or any other kind of leave).
In reply to my previous RTIs it is observed that PIO is trying to protect Dr. A. M. Khan by denying information on frivolous grounds. Leave record is not personal information and must be supplied under RTI act 2005. This has been decided in several CIC orders which are as follows:
a. CIC decision No: CIC/BS/A/2016/000133 b. CIC decision No: CIC/SB/A/2015/000516 CCIC decision No: CIC/SB/A/2015/000433 In several CIC decisions including above three cited decisions it was held that information pertaining to the attendance of a public servant cannot be withheld under any section of RTI Act 2005 as it does not comes under Page 4 of 8 the category of personal information. This is a serious matter, therefore, you are requested to do the needful at the earliest."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.08.2023 stating as under:-
"Reference to your RTI this is to inform you that information sought by you is belongs to third party."
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.11.2024, upheld reply of the CPIO.
8. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Samrat Singh Rawat, present in person. Respondent: Dr. Khole Timothy Poumai, Professor/ PIO along with Ms. Kavita Sharma, Administrative Officer present in person.
9. Written statement of the Appellant is taken on record.
10. Appellant stated that there is a wide scale corruption involved in the matter as the appointment of Dr. A M Khan as a Professor who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. To expose this fraud, the Appellant filed representation and also sought the attendance records and publication details of concerned professor. It was the plea of the Appellant the request for disclosure of information was denied by the PIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 ignoring the fact that it involves public money and also pertains to larger public interest.
11. PIO submitted that details of publication of the concerned third party that were considered for promotion are confidential records which are included in his APAR and also the attendance records pertains to personal information of third party, disclosure of which invade the privacy of third party individual. Accordingly, the information was denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Even otherwise, the publications/journals Page 5 of 8 are already available in public domain and this fact was informed to the Appellant.
12. On the oral directions of the Bench, the PIO agreed to provide an updated written statement to the Appellant in response to RTI applications in question.
Decision:
13. Heard the parties.
14. After adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the CPIO and on perusal of the records, the Commission finds that the denial of request for disclosure of Information by the CPIO of the Appellant regarding attendance records and other service related records of Dr. A M Khan for appointment/promotion as Professor under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, is rightly based on the reason that such records as sought in the RTI Application pertains to personal information of third party and would tantamount to invasion of the Right to Privacy which is exempted from disclosure under the said relevant provision of the RTI Act, 2005.
15. The Commission also placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled Dr. R S Gupta v. Govt. of NCT Delhi W P (C) 8352 of 2018 wherein it was held:
"....It is clear from a perusal of the RTI application filed by the petitioner that he was seeking the complete copies of the school staff attendance registers. This has been rightly refused as the information pertains to private information of other employees and would tantamount to invasion of the Right to Privacy. The petitioner has received his personal information. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the impugned order to warrant any interference by this court."
16. In addition to it,Bench relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012 wherein it was held:
".... The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression Page 6 of 8 "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under cl use(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made bonafide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."
17. It is noteworthy that Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 was brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority, no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing Public interest against privacy.
18. Notwithstanding the aforesaid and in light of the submissions tendered by the PIO during hearing, the PIO is directed to provide a revised updated reply for each of the instant RTI application in question substantiating their denial of request for disclosure of information, if any, by quoting relevant applicable exemption clause of RTI Act, 2005 along with justification in terms of section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005. The replies shall be provided to the Page 7 of 8 Appellant, free of cost, within one week from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date ShriSamrat Singh Rawat Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)