Central Information Commission
Moushumi Basu vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 25 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/JNUND/A/2025/631584
Moushumi Basu .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, RTI CELL,
J.N.U., NEW DELHI-110067 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026
Date of Decision : 17.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.04.2025
CPIO replied on : 08.05.2025
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority's order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.07.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2025 seeking the following information:-
"1. Details of CAS Promotion Cases for the period February 2022 to 5 March 2025, as per i.Name of faculty ii. Stage of promotion iii. Date of interview iv. Date of Order as per notification issued to Faculty Page 1 of 5
2. Details of Pending Cases of CAS Promotions as per the answer provided to the unstarred question no 2900 in the Rajya Sabha by the university on 26.03.2025, with reference to i. Name of faculty ii. Stage of promotion pending iii. Year/Month above the stipulated period of CAS promotions."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.05.2025 stating as under:-
"1. 215 Nos.
The other information is exempted from disclosure under 8(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. 89 Nos.
The other information is exempted from disclosure under 8(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide its order dated Nil, stated as under:-
The information has been provided while replying to the RTI Query. The copy of reply submitted to unstarred question No.2900 is at Annexure-I. However, the RTI applicant can visit faculty details on the JNU website having the details of promotion of faculty members also on the following link:
https://www.jnu.ac.in/sites/default/files/Faculty%201ist%20as%2 0on%2001.06 .2025.pdf
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: Ms. Moushumi Basu , present in person. Respondent: Shri Abhishek K Singh, Dy. Registrar/ Nodal CPIO along with Shri Anil Bajaj, AR (Academic), Shri Devendra Kumar Verson, SO (Acad. III) and Shri M P Goel, ASC (RC), present in person.Page 2 of 5
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. The Appellant stated that she is aggrieved by the fact that only vague numeric figures of pending cases of under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was provided to her without any supporting documents, however, complete specific information about list of faculty, date of their joining, promotion, etc. has been denied by the Respondent ignoring the fact that Appellant was also one of the employees who is working in the University and had a doubt that ineligible candidates are getting promotion due to undue favour of higher ups. Appellant stated that to clarify doubt regarding discrimination played by the organization, she sought the information which should be disclosed by the CPIO. Appellant added that even otherwise, such data are put up by the JNU before the Parliament while replying to un-starred questions, therefore, it cannot be denied under any of the exemption clause of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, as such. She prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the relevant information.
7. CPIO submitted that point-wise reply along with relevant information, as is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 was furnished to the Appellant. CPIO further averred that complete details of faculty are available in public domain and can be accessed from their official website. However, the complete personal data of all faculties contain the elements of personal information of third-parties which are held in the University in fiduciary capacity, therefore, the request for such details was denied to the Appellant under section 8 (1)(j) and section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
8. Heard the parties.
9. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and perusal of the records observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was apprehension of discriminatory treatment by the Respondent in not giving promotion to the Appellant as like other similarly placed persons and/or giving more benefits to ineligible persons, which is the genesis of this matter.
10. Here, it is pertinent to note that where the information of any officer of the same department is sought by the Applicant to strengthen/defend his own service matter, then there is no scope for invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the Appellant/petitioner is not a stranger to the Respondent Institution but working there as considered in a judgement passed by the Page 3 of 5 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023 with the following observations
-
"...5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to NC: 2023: KHC:29928 reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order...."
11. In view of the applicability of above ratio, exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as invoked by the Respondent initially is not tenable for the reason that for working out redressal of grievance in service, an employee has to have full permissible particulars of other employees working under the same employer especially when the dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion and the like.
12. In light of the above discussion, the impugned reply of the CPIO is set aside and this Second Appeal is allowed.
13. The CPIO is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application only, on a mutually convenient date and time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. While doing so, the CPIO may provide a list of files connected pertaining to this RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file to the Appellant. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to her, as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005, upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules.
Page 4 of 5The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Ms. Moushumi Basu Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)