Central Information Commission
Sunil K P vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 22 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: (1) CIC/LICOI/A/2024/609953,
(2) CIC/LICOI/A/2024/610584.
Sunil K P .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC of India, Southern Zonal
Office, P B No. 2450, LIC
Building, No. 153, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.08.2025
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
decision through common order as these are based on similar RTI
applications of the same appellant against same Respondent Public
Authority.
(1) CIC/LICOI/A/2024/609953
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 08.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 13.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 14
"Kindly make available the following information regarding the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023:-
1) Name with marks obtained in written test and interview (in separate), in respect of all candidates who attended the interviews.
2) Name of all candidates selected and issued with appointment orders/selection intimations.
3) Name of candidates who have not joined for training/duty as on date.
4) Name of candidates who have applied for extension for joining.
5) Name of candidates who have had left the service, after joining for training/duty.
6) Are any further selections proposed to be made from the list as mentioned in Col.No.1? If yes give its details, with names of candidates proposed.
7) Is any supplementary/additional/waiting list prepared based on the above interview? if yes, give the names included in that list.
Kindly give the details regarding the above, in PDF format, via email ([email protected])"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.11.2023 stating as under:
"Replies to Queries 1 to 7: The ADO recruitment round 2022-2023 will be complete only after the Contingency list is operated, if any, as decided by the Competent Authority and any information related to this round 2022- 2023 shall be made available under RTI Act 2005, only after the round is complete. The information sought, wherever applicable, shall be available subject to a fresh application."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.12.2023, held as under:
Page 2 of 14"On perusing the online RTI application dated 25.10.2023.2023, the CPIO's reply dated 08.11.2023, First appeal received online dated 13.11.2023 and the response received from the Department concerned, the appellant is informed as under:
"The reply given by the CPIO in response to the RTI application is reiterated. As informed in the reply, the ADO recruitment round 2022- 2023 will be complete only after the Contingency list is operated, if any, as decided by the Competent Authority. Full information related to this round 2022-2023 would be available only after the round is complete. Thereafter, the information, wherever applicable, shall be available subject to a fresh application under RTI Act, 2005.
With the above information, I dispose of the appeal of K.P.Sunil dated 13.11.2023.""
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 01.08.2025 filed by Shri R Sankarnarayanan, CPIO is taken on record. Relevant extracts of the same are reproduced below:
"...Second Appeal before CIC by Appellant:
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply and First Appellate order, the appellant preferred a Second appeal to the Hon'ble CIC as below: The reply by CPIO and First Appellate Authority is very negative considering the essence of RTI Act 2005. Hence I request to take all necessary steps to consider my original application We humbly submit before the Hon'ble CIC that:
Query 1: Name with marks obtained in written test and interview (in separate), in respect of all candidates who attended the interviews. Query 2: Name of all candidates selected and issued with appointment orders/selection intimations.
Submission to CIC for queries 1 & 2: The information sought by the appellant is not maintained by this public authority. The information sought is not maintained as a record in a compiled form, at a single point, as it is not mandated by any statutory requirement or by any law being in force and is not required for day to day working of the respondent organisation. Compiling and collating the data for the sake of RTI will be a time consuming process and would disproportionately Page 3 of 14 divert the resources of this public authority and hence cannot be provided under Sec 7(9) of RTI Act,2005.
Query 3: Name of candidates who have not joined for training/duty as on date.
Query 4: Name of candidates who have applied for extension for joining. Query 5: Name of candidates who have had left the service, after joining for training/duty.
Submission to CIC-Queries 3, 4 &5: Information sought under queries 3, 4 & 5 relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and hence exempted under See 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,2005.
Query 6: Are any further selections proposed to be made from the list as mentioned in Col.No.1? If yes give its details, with names of candidates proposed.
Query 7: Is any supplementary/additional/waiting list prepared based on the above interview? if yes, give the names included in that list. Submission to CIC-Queries 6 & 7: The recruitment process of ADO Round 2022-23 is completed. Please refer the reply given to Queries 1 &2."
(2) CIC/LICOI/A/2024/610584 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 19.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 02.01.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 30.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.03.2024 Information sought:
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.11.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly make available the following information, as per RTI Act 2005, regarding the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under LIC Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023:-Page 4 of 14
1) Name with marks obtained in written test and interview (in separate), in respect of all those candidates who attended the interviews.
2) Name of all candidates selected and issued with appointment orders/selection intimations, as on date.
3) Name of candidates who have not joined for training/duty as on date.
4) Name of candidates who have applied for extension for joining.
5) Name of candidates who have had left the service/training, after joining for training/duty, as on date.
In this application, as on date, refers to the date of providing the information/reply. All informations provided will be deemed to be as on date of information provided by CPIO, unless otherwise specified. If any process in respect of the above queries is incomplete, then as on date information shall be provided."
7. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 19.12.2023 stating as under:
"Reply 1): The ADO recruitment round 2022-2023 will be complete only after the Contingency list is operated, if any, as decided by the Competent Authority and full information related to this round 2022- 2023 shall be available only after the round is complete. Further, the information sought is exempted under Sec 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005, as the information relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
Reply 2): The information sought, wherever applicable, shall be available subject to fresh application to the respective Divisions.
Reply to Queries 3),4) and 5): The ADO recruitment round 2022-2023 will be complete only after the Contingency list is operated, if any, as decided by the Competent Authority and full information related to this round 2022-2023 shall be available only after the round is complete.
Further, the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j), as the information is in the nature of commercial confidence and relates to personal information of others respectively, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest."Page 5 of 14
8. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 30.01.2024, held as under:
"On perusing the online RTI application dated 21.11.2023, the CPIO's reply dated 19.12.2023, First appeal received online dated 02.01.2024 and the response received from the Department concerned, the appellant is informed as under:
"The reply given by the CPIO in response to the RTI application for queries 1 to 5 is reiterated. As informed in the reply, the ADO recruitment round 2022-2023 will be complete only after the Contingency list is operated, if any, as decided by the Competent Authority. This process is yet to be completed. Hence the information related to ADO recruitment round 2022-2023, 'as on date', as sought by the appellant, could not be furnished.
Thereafter, the information, wherever applicable, shall be available subject to a fresh application and in accordance with RTI Act, 2005.
With the above information, I dispose of the appeal of K.P.Sunil dated 02.01.2024.""
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
10. A written submission dated 01.08.2025 filed by Shri R Sankarnarayanan, CPIO is taken on record. Relevant extracts of the same are reproduced below:
"...Second Appeal before CIC by Appellant:
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply and First Appellate order, the appellant preferred a Second appeal to the Hon'ble CIC as below: I request you to take urgent action for providing the information requested by me. If any process in respect of the above queries is incomplete, then as on date information shall be provided.
We humbly submit before the Hon'ble CIC that:
Query 1: Name with marks obtained in written test and interview (in separate), in respect of all candidates who attended the interviews. Query 2: Name of all candidates selected and issued with appointment orders/selection intimations as on date.
Submission to CIC for queries 1 &2: The information sought by the appellant is not maintained by this public authority. The information sought is not maintained as a record in a compiled form, at a single point, as it is not Page 6 of 14 mandated by any statutory requirement or by any law being in force and is not required for day to day working of the respondent organisation. Compiling and collating the data for the sake of RTI will be a time consuming process and would disproportionately divert the resources of this public authority and hence cannot be provided under Sec 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. Query 3: Name of candidates who have not joined for training/duty as on date.
Query 4: Name of candidates who have applied for extension for joining. Query 5: Name of candidates who have had left the service, after joining for training/duty.
Submission to CIC- Queries 3, 4 &5: Information sought under queries 3, 4 & 5 relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and hence exempted under Sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
In the light of the above, we humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to consider the case favourably and to dismiss summarily the second appeal dated 06.03.2024."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
11. The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri R. Sankarnarayan, Regional Manager (CRM/PS)/CPIO along with Shri Oliver Davis, Assistant Secretary (Marketing) present through video conference.
12. Proof of having served a copy of second appeals on the Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. On query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
13. The Commission is in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 25.07.2025 in each file which are taken on record. Contents of the same (case File No. wise) are reproduced below:
CIC/LICOI/A/2024/609953.
"I humbly beg for pardon before the Honourable Central Information Commission, since I may not be in a position to appear in person before the Honourable Central Information Commission, owing to Official obligations. Hence I submit my grounds before the Honourable Central Information Commission, in writing.Page 7 of 14
INFORMATION APPLIED FOR:-
Kindly make available the following information regarding the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023:
1) Name with marks obtained in written test and interview (in separate), in respect of all candidates who attended the interviews.
2) Name of all candidates selected and issued with appointment orders/selection intimations.
3) Name of candidates who have not joined for training/duty as on date.
4) Name of candidates who have applied for extension for joining.
5) Name of candidates who have had left the service, after joining for training/duty.
6) Are any further selections proposed to be made from the list as mentioned in Col.No.1? If yes give its details, with names of candidates proposed.
7) Is any supplementary/additional/waiting list prepared based on the above interview? if yes, give the names included in that list. Kindly give the details regarding the above, in PDF format, via email ([email protected]).
All information provided will be deemed to be as on date of information provided by CPIO, unless otherwise specified. If any process in respect of the above queries is incomplete, then as on date information shall be provided. APPEAL:-
The reply submitted for my application is not specific. The answers to Question nos. 1 to 5 can be made available at this stage. The reason that the entire process of selection procedure should be completed for giving the marks obtained by candidates in Written test and interview, does not hold good as per the essence of RTI Act 2005. Because the marks obtained by various candidates in Written test and interview should be valued and finalized before the selection procedure starts. But, unfortunately, here the selection procedure has started, but no any information is available in website, other than a selection list published in Chennai Divisional Office. So The candidates are deprived of any information regarding this selection procedure. Hence this RTI application was submitted, but it is very unfortunate to know that even after submitting application under RTI, the CPIO and First Appellate Authority is reluctant to provide information positively. The reply by CPIO and First Appellate Authority is very negative, considering the essence of RTI Act 2005. Hence I request to take Page 8 of 14 all necessary steps to consider my original application favorably, and provide the necessary information at the earliest.
MY SUBMISSION I made this application, under RTI Act, to get an information about the selection procedures regarding the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under LIC Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023, for which my son was a candidate - Sri. Ananthakrishnan.K.S. Being his father, and an Indian Citizen in general, I have every right to know about the selection procedures, the marks obtained by each candidates, how many candidates were selected, etc., about which I am totally ignorant till date. The selection procedures were not at all transparent. Now, almost 21 months have elapsed since I made this application, and I am not very sure, whether this information will fetch any results for my son, since time is an essence for mitigation of any loss and damages. Hence my humble request is that, the above information may be made available to me, at the earliest." CIC/LICOI/A/2024/610584 "I humbly beg for pardon before the Honourable Central Information Commission, since I may not be in a position to appear in person before the Honourable Central Information Commission, owing to Official obligations. Hence I submit my grounds before the Honourable Central Information Commission, in writing.
INFORMATION APPLIED FOR:-
Kindly make available the following information, as per RTI Act 2005, regarding the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under LIC Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023:
1) Name with marks obtained in written test and interview (in separate), in respect of all those candidates who attended the interviews.
2) Name of all candidates selected and issued with appointment orders/selection intimations, as on date.
3) Name of candidates who have not joined for training/duty as on date.
4) Name of candidates who have applied for extension for joining.
5) Name of candidates who have had left the service/training, after joining for training/duty, as on date. In this application, as on date, refers to the date of providing the information/reply.
All information provided will be deemed to be as on date of information provided by CPIO, unless otherwise specified. If any process in respect of the above queries is incomplete, then as on date information shall be provided.
Page 9 of 14APPEAL:-
I made a previous application for obtaining the above information (File No. LICSZ/A/E/23/00031), but the same was rejected, citing the reason "the selection procedure is not complete". Hence I made this application, after 1 month, clearly indicating that I need only as on date information, but it was again rejected by CPIO and First Appellate Authority, under grounds other than explained in the Act (read section 8, 9 and 10). My application was again rejected with reason assigned "the selection procedure is not complete". But I have clearly stated in my request that information required is "as on date". Hence it is a pure case of violation of the RTI Act, for rejecting application as per the CPIO's own will and logic.
MY SUBMISSION I made this application, under RTI Act, to get an information about the selection procedures regarding the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under LIC Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023, for which my son was a candidate - Sri. Ananthakrishnan. K.S. Being his father, and an Indian Citizen in general, I have every right to know about the selection procedures, the marks obtained by each candidates, how many candidates were selected, etc., about which I am totally ignorant till date. The selection procedures were not at all transparent. Now, almost 20 months have elapsed since I made this application, and I am not very sure, whether this information will fetch any results for my son, since time is an essence for any information. Hence my humble request is that, the above information may be made available to me, at the earliest."
14. The Respondent submitted that point-wise reply has already been provided to the Appellant and upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission a revised updated response has been prepared and uploaded on the CIC's website. The Commission interjected and counselled the Respondent 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 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 Respondent volunteered to revisit the contents of RTI application and provide a revised reply to the Appellant in the light of aforesaid judgement.
Page 10 of 14Decision:
15. 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 appeals was denial of list of selected candidates with their marks for the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under LIC Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023. In response to which, the Respondent claimed that list of candidates applied with their marks obtained contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. And, such information are not maintained in the consolidated form, collation and compilation of said information would divert the resources of the Respondent Public Authority, therefore, they claimed inability to provide these information to the Appellant in view of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.
16. Here, it is noteworthy that earlier the denial of information regarding the marks secured by the selected candidates used to be upheld by the Commission in previous decisions. However, the situation has changed with the 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, which has further been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred in the preceding paragraphs. Thus, the replying CPIO cannot be faulted.
17. It may not be out of place to mention that the confidence in the selection process would be boosted by disclosing the names of the selected candidates and the marks obtained by them, if any. Transparency and accountability in a public recruitment process would be promoted. The disclosure of the list of selected candidates in a public recruitment process cannot be said to be purely personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In any event, the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Such disclosure would promote transparency and accountability and dispel the lingering doubts about wrongdoings in the public recruitment process. Such disclosures would strengthen the recruitment process by boosting public confidence in it.
Page 11 of 1418. Further, the Commission would like to invite attention of the Respondent towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.9648 OF 2021) dated 11.11.2024, wherein the Court has made the following observations:
"....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 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.Page 12 of 14
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."
19. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the copy of list of the selected candidates in order of merit category-wise (reservation categories) for the Recruitment of Apprentice Development Officer 22-23, (OPEN MARKET CATEGORY), under LIC Chennai Division, in respect of written tests (MAIN EXAM) held on 23-04-2023 rank wise along with the marks obtained by them under the recruitment notice, which is the subject in issue, barring other personal identifying details of the candidates, free of cost to the appellant, within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
20. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
21. No further relief can be granted in these matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 13 of 14 Date Copy To:
The FAA, LIC of India, Southern Zonal Office, P B No. 2450, LIC Building, No. 153, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)