Central Information Commission
Gaurav Goel vs National Institute Of Open Schooling on 11 May, 2026
के य सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NIOPS/A/2025/613600
GAURAV GOEL .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING,
RTI CELL, A-24-25, SECTOR 62, NOIDA,
UP - 201309 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.05.2026
Date of Decision : 04.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.01.2025
CPIO replied on : 07.02.2025
First appeal filed on : 07.03.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.03.2025
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"I, Gaurav Goel applied for the post of EDP Supervisor in the year 2021 with the following details Post applied EDP supervisor Page 1 of 7 Application number 121095900292 Skill test Roll no. 16281800767 The skill test was done on 01 oct 2023.
I, gaurav goel submitted the PGDCA document in November 2023 in nios head office, post which the file was moved by the Recruitment section regarding the candidature of gaurav goel (mine). Following information is required:
1) Pls provide the copy of noting where the CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDADATURE OF GAURAV GOEL FOR THE POST OF EDP SUPERVISOR was PUT UP, which includes all the remarks and signature of the officers involved.
2) Pls provide the copy of noting of file where the case of all the selected candidates was PUT UP and selection committee remarks regarding selection of EDP supervisors were mentioned.
3) Also provide the soft copy of (a) ONLINE APPLICATION FORMS filled during the online submission of recruitment window, (b) education documents,
(c) experience documents of 16 candidates selected for the post of EDP supervisor as per result notification attached, released on 11 November 2023.
(advertisement year 2021) (NIOS/RC/01/2021)
4) Also provide the copy of noting where remarks were mentioned by the recruitment officers and selection committee regarding the NON CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDATURE OF GAURAV GOEL (Application number 121095900292) The information at point 2 and 3 cannot be denied under section 8 (1) (j) as it related to the recruitment in public domain and there is a possibility of biasedness and injustice in recruitment process as candidates not having essential qualification were also selected. The information has relationship to the public activity or interest. It would not cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. The case is related to recruitment through ALL INDIA OPEN recruitment examination.
Page 2 of 7(REFERNCE ORDER BY KERALA HIGH COURT citations: AIR2007KER225, AIR 2007 KERALA 225, 2007 (5) ALL LI NOC 916, 2007 (6) ABR (NOC) 1034 (KER), 2008 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 147 (KER), 2007 AIHC NOC 551, (2007) 3 KER LT 550, (2007) 58 ALLINDCAS 667 (KER) Canara Bank vs The Central Information Commission And... on 11 July, 2007"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.02.2025 stating as under:
"Please refer to your RTI Application No. NIOPS/R/E/2025/00049 dated 21st January, 2025 on the subject cited above. In this connection, I am to inform you that you had applied for the post of EDP Supervisor in response to NIOS advertisement NIOS/RC/01/2021. The Essential Qualification required for the post was as under:
1. Bachelor's degree from a recognized University with Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application/Hardware Engineering or its equivalent from a recognized institution.
2. 3 years experience in Programming and System Development in reputed big firms.
OR Officer of the Central Govt./Autonomous bodies/Research Institutes/Govt. Presses holding analogous posts on a regular basis or with 10 years experience in the scale of Level-4 of the pay matrix (Rs. 25500-81100 as per 7th CPC), pre-revised Rs. 5200-20,200 with G.P. Rs. 2400 PB-1 as per 6th CPC) (pre to pre revised Rs. 4000-100-6000) on a regular basis or 6 years experience in the scale of Level -5 (Rs. 29200-92300 as per 7th CPC), (pre revised Rs. 5200-20200 with G.P. Rs. 2800 PB-1 as per 6th CPC) (Pre to pre revised Rs. 4500-7000).
You were possessing the following Education qualification and experience on the last date of applying for the post of EDP Supervisor on 10/10/2021.
B.Sc. (Hons.) Computer Science from Delhi University passed in 2013. You were not having essential Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application as you had neither mentioned in your application form nor submitted any proof thereof.
You had appeared for PGDCA in October, 2021 and you were issued provisional Certificate on 26/10/2023.Page 3 of 7
You have been representing time and again regarding your non selection for the post of EDP Supervisor. We have responded to your concerns multiple times, both in writing and in person, and have clarified that the recruitment process was conducted in a transparent, impartial, and merit- based manner. We reiterate that there has been no deviation from the prescribed guidelines and all candidates were evaluated fairly based on the established criteria i.e. educational qualifications, experience, and performance during the Skill Test.
You have also been informed that no further correspondence on this matter will be entertained. We accordingly request you to refrain from sending such communications on this issue.
It is reiterated that the final selection was made after due consideration of all relevant factors and no injustice was done to anyone in the evaluation and selection process.
NIOS proposes to consider the matter as closed."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 20.03.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. 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 Gaurav Goel present in person. Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gautam, Dy. Director/ CPIO present in person.
5. Written statement of both the parties is taken on record.
6. Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI application expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that noting/remarks of the Committee considering the selection of 16 candidates and not recommending the name of Appellant in the list of selected candidates for the subject applied post has not been provided by the CPIO and FAA so far. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission. The Appellant contended that Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable in this matter as he has sought information in larger public interest Page 4 of 7 and in support of his arguments, the Appellant gave reference of one of the citations i.e. AIR2007KER225, etc.
7. CPIO stated that Appellant has sought information regarding his non- selection for the post of EDP Supervisor and in this regard, Appellant filed multiple RTI applications and representation including the present ones and in response to his RTI application it was informed to the Appellant that he did not possess the essential qualification of post graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) at the time of submission of application and required experience of 3 years in programming and system development in a reputed organization. Appellant neither mentioned the said qualification in his application for nor submitted any supporting documentary proof at the relevant time, hence, Appellant was not considered for the subject post. This fact was intimated to the Appellant.
8. Appellant interject and pleaded that at least the noting sheet pertaining to his non-selection as sought in point No. 4 of RTI application be provided by the CPIO. In response to it, the CPIO stated that such noting was shared with the Appellant in response to his earlier RTI application, however, the CPIO agreed to resend the copy of noting pertaining to Appellant regarding non-consideration of Appellant's candidature for the subject post. Decision:
9. Heard the parties.
10. The Commission, after going through the materials placed on record and after hearing submission of both the parties observes that the core contention of the Appellant in the instant Appeal was non-receipt of noting/remarks given by the Selection Committee Members regarding non-consideration of Appellant's name for the subject post and also the noting along with application form of selected candidates. To this end, it was submitted by the CPIO that Appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and representation including the present ones and in response to his RTI application it was informed to the Appellant that he did not possess the essential qualification of post graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) at the time of submission of application and required experience of 3 years in programming and system development in a reputed organization. Appellant neither mentioned the said qualification in his application for nor submitted any supporting documentary Page 5 of 7 proof at the relevant time, hence, Appellant was not considered for the subject post. This fact was intimated to the Appellant.
11. The Commission arrives at the conclusion that reply and as a sequel to it factual position informed by the CPIO regarding non-selection of Appellant's candidature for the subject post due to absence of requisite eligibility criteria finds to be suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
12. It is also noteworthy that the application forms of selected candidates and noting/remarks for selection/non-selection of candidature as sought by the Appellant contain the elements of personal information of third parties, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. For that purpose, the hearing 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. 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 out weighing public interest against privacy.
13. However, considering the limited prayer of the Appellant regarding noting/remarks for his non-selection of candidature at point No. 4 of RTI application in question and commitment of the CPIO to provide the needful to the Appellant, the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to provide the remarks/noting as sought by the Appellant in response to point No. 4 only where Appellant's name is figured out, after redacting the personal details and identifying particulars of any third-party which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. For that purpose, the CPIO may redact the exempted information by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005.
14. The above said information be provided to the Appellant, free of cost, within one week from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सध ु ा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Page 6 of 7 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri GAURAV GOEL Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)