Central Information Commission
Asad Javed Khan vs National Testing Agency on 16 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NTAGN/A/2025/606747
Asad Javed Khan .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, RTI
CELL, RTI CELL, FIRST FLOOR,
NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW
DELHI-110020 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.12.2024
CPIO replied on : 23.01.2025
First appeal filed on : 27.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.01.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : N.A.
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2024 seeking the following information:-
"I am a qualified candidate of Rani lakshmi bal central agricultural universityjhansi Recruitment of Non teaching post2023 POST name- Upper division clerk. My details are Name-Asad javed khan, Roll No.- MP06010342,App No.-UDC488,cat-OBC result of qualified candidates for Page 1 of 6 DV of the above exam was declared by you on NTA website via public notice 02/08/24(pdf attached). Total 73 candidates were qualified for UDC Post as per Anex-1. kindly provide me below three points information under RTH
1)a copy of the marks list of all 73 qualified candidates of UDC Post Roll No. wise. (ie marks scored in the NTA CBT exam)
2)a copy of the skill test result of all three module i.e. word, excel and ppt of mine conducted on 05/09/24.
3)a copy of typing test result/transcripts of mine conducted on 05/09/24."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.01.2025 stating as under:-
" Information sought may not be provided under section 8(1) of RTI Act 2005. please visit website."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 30.01.2025, upheld 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: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Joydeep Das, Consultant present in person.
5. Written statement of the PIO is taken on record.
6. Respondent submitted that request for information was initially denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC a revised reply was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.02.2025 stating as under -
(a) The information sought pertains to third-party personal information and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 6
(b) Skill Tests not conducted by NTA, hence applicant may contact concerned University.
(c) Typing test/transcripts not conducted by NTA, hence applicant may contact concerned University."
7. Respondent explained that for point (1) the Appellant has sought marks list of 73 candidates which relates to preliminary exams and also pertains to personal information of third-parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Even otherwise, the selection process is yet to be completed as per his knowledge. For point No. (2) and (3), Respondent further explained that no skill test are conducted by NTA, therefore, no question for such results arise.
8. The Bench brought to the attention of the CPIO towards a recent judgement of Hon'ble High of Bombay in the case titled Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (Writ Petition No.9648 OF 2021) decided on 11.11.2024 which was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP No. 2783/2025 vide order dated 07.02.2025, wherein it was held that the merit list and marks of selected candidates under Public Recruitment Exams cannot be denied to the applicants under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for the reason that the marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be "personal information...." and therefore furnishing such information would also not cause an unwarranted invasion of individual's privacy. Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records observes that core contention raised by the Appellant in the Appeal was denial of request for information against point No. 1, 2, and 3 of RTI application. In response to which, the Respondent claimed for point No. 1 that the marks list of selected candidates applied for the subject post contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. To this end, the Bench informed the Respondent/CPIO that marks and list of selected candidates of a public recruitment cannot be denied under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case titled Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (Writ Petition No.9648 OF 2021) decided on Page 3 of 6 11.11.2024 which was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP No. 2783/2025 vide order dated 07.02.2025. In response to it, the Respondents further informed that as per his knowledge the selection process is yet to attain finality.
10. it is noteworthy to rely on recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai on a date 11.11.2024 in the case titled Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.9648 OF 2021) dated 11.11.2024 as discussed below:-
"....27. In this case, we are concerned with a selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune. Essentially, this is a process by which applications were invited from all eligible candidates by issuing a public advertisement. In that sense, this public process must be transparent and above board. The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be "personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest". Furnishing such information would also not cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy.
28. The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Since the selection process for Junior Clerks at the District Court in Pune was essentially a public activity which commenced with public advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates, we do not think that the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates participating in such a process would amount to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Given that such selection processes must be transparent and above board, it would be in the public interest to disclose such information rather than withhold it and allow any doubts about the process (however unjustified such doubts may be) to linger.
xxx xxx xxx
51. Since we have found that the disclosure of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, typing test and interviewers did not constitute any exempted information or did not affect the confidentiality Page 4 of 6 of the exam so conducted, we must say that the approach of the District authorities in Wardha contributed to the promotion of transparency which should typically be promoted in matters of public recruitment. Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes. Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
52. Therefore, though the Wardha disclosure may not be binding precedents, we still think there was nothing wrong with the District Authorities at Wardha making such disclosures. By making such disclosures, the district authorities at Wardha cannot be said to have breached or acted in ignorance of the provisions in Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act or Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules) 2009 or instructions no.19 issued to the candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk."
11. The aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP No 2783/2025 vide order dated 07.02.2025.
12. In light of the above, the Commission calls for the action of the CPIO to revisit the contents of point No. 1 of RTI application in question and provide a revised reply along with list of the selected candidates with their marks under the recruitment advertisement which is the subject in issue, barring the other personal details of the candidates, free of cost to the Appellant. This direction shall be complied within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
13. As regards point No. 2 & 3, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO intimating the factual position regarding non-conducting of any skill test and accordingly, no such results are available. This reply is found to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it is upheld with respect to point No. 2 and 3 of RTI application.
Page 5 of 6The 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 Shri Asad Javed Khan Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)