Central Information Commission
Hari Kumar vs National Testing Agency on 29 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2024/125633
Hari Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Testing
Agency, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.01.2024 FA : 27.02.2024 SA : 09.08.2024
CPIO : 15.02.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 11.08.2025
Date of Decision: 28.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
I, Hari Kumar had applied for the Deputy Registrar post in JNU- Non Teaching recruitment no. 1/RC(NT)/2023 with application no.234810048557 and roll no. DL01082007 and was shortlisted for interview. The Final result was declared on 19th December 2023 and I was not selected.
To know my marks and finally selected candidate marks separately in written and interview and total marks, I sent an email to NTA at [email protected] on 21st December, again on December 26 2023, and reminder on 10th January 2024 (the mail copy enclosed). I submitted by hand application (enclosed) for the same at Page 1 of 5 NTO NSIC reception with acknowledgement inward receiving no. 4063 dated 27/12/23.
Till date no reply has been received and it is almost more than 15 days from my first mail. To get the information I am writing this application and submitting by hand at NTA, NSIC Office under RTI with Rs.20 Indian Postal Order bearing no. 18G 333101 (as Rs.10 IPO is not available) issued from Lajpat Nagar Post Office, Delhi payable to Account officer NTA (enclosed with the application) to seek the below information. You are requested to provide the following information;
1. Hari Kumar's written marks and interview marks separately and total marks with application no. 234810048557 and roll no. DL01082007 for JNU- Non Teaching recruitment no. 1/RC(NT)/2023.
2. The written and interview marks separately and total marks for the Finally selected Deputy Registrar candidate in ST category for the JNU- Non Teaching recruitment no. 1/RC(NT)/2023.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Information sought is not available. You are advised to keep visiting the official website of NTA https://recruitment.nta.nic.in/ for latest updates.
2. The information sought under this point involves disclosure of particulars of other students/ candidates, thus impinging upon the provisions of section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, such information could not be divulged to you.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.08.2024.Page 2 of 5
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Joy Deep Das, Consultant, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant reiterated background of the RTI application and inter alia submitted that he had sought his own written and interview marks of the exam held for Dy, Registrar under JNU- non-teaching but instead of furnishing the information the respondent authority had provided a weblink for updates. Further, the marks of the other candidates had been denied u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the link provided by the CPIO in his earlier reply indicated only cutoff marks though the result was declared in 2023. Hence, his marks were not provided.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 15.02.2024.
On being queried by the Commission regarding a delay in providing the marks of the appellant through their written submission dated 01.08.2025, the respondent did not proper justification for the delay. A written submission dated 01.08.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
"1. The candidate's written exam marks - 172 and Interview marks- 21. Total marks - (172+ 21)=193.
2. Finally selected candidate for the post Deputy Registrar candidate in ST category Stage 1 Cut Off-149 and Interview Cut off -56.26."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that information sought on point no. 1 has been provided by the respondent vide their written submission dated 01.08.2025. Further, on point no. 2, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been Page 3 of 5 exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
9. Further, the Commission observes that the reply given by the respondent on point no. 1 is evasive and misleading as link provided by the CPIO in his earlier reply only indicated cutoff marks though the result was declared in 2023. Further, Mr. Joy Deep Das, Consultant, failed to explain the cogent reasons for such inordinate delay in providing the information sought on point no. 1. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining reasons for furnishing misleading reply initially and for the delay in providing the marks of the appellant, by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 5Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 28.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO National Testing Agency, CPIO, RTI Cell, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020 2 Hari Kumar Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)