Central Information Commission
Vishal Mahar vs National Building Construction ... on 4 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480
Vishal Mahar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO under RTI, Nodal
Officer-(RTI Section), NBCC (India)
Limited (Ministry of Housing &
Urban Affairs), RTI Division, NBCC
Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025
Date of Decision : 04.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.05.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First appeal filed on : 04.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on Record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
" What was the overall cutoff (category-wise) for the post of SR. PROJECT EXECUTIVE (CIVIL) ADVT. NO. 01/2023 File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 1 of 7 What was the category-wise cutoff of the written examination for the post of SR. PROJECT EXECUTIVE (CIVIL) ADVT. NO. 01/2023 conducted on 25th Sep 2023.
How many students (category-wise) applied and attended the exam for the post of SR. PROJECT EXECUTIVE (CIVIL) ADVT. NO. 01/2023 "
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
4. A written submission dated 27.11.2025 filed by Ms. Manjeet Mahajan, GM (HR)/ CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"..1. CPIO, NBCC forwarded the RTI application to the concerned deemed PIO for obtaining requisite information on 06.05.2024 through RTI-MIS portal & e- mail. Accordingly, CPIO, NBCC disposed of the application with reply on dated 29.08.2024 (enclosed as Annexure - II).
2. The reply was given as:
Points 1 & 2 No such information exists with this public authority. Point 3 Detail of candidates who applied for the post of the SPE (Civil) is as under:
UR-723, EWS 111, OBC-638, SC-414, ST-128 Total -917 candidates appeared in CBT exam for the post of SPE (Civil). EXPLANATION:
It can be seen that the reply has already been furnished by the CPIO w.r.t. the RTI application."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent.File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 2 of 7
Respondent: Ms. Manjeeta Mahajan Srivastava, GM (HR)/CPIO along with Shri Neelesh Sahu, Project Manager (Civil) present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite prior intimation.
7. Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of her written submission stated that a point-wise reply along with available information has already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.08.2024. For point No. 1 and 2 of RTI application, she explained that exam/recruitment process for the subject Advertisement were under process at the relevant time and it was conducted by their external agency, therefore, factum of non-availability of records in their office has been informed to the Appellant. Against point No. 3, she added that number of candidates category wise was intimated to the Appellant.
8. On being queried by the Commission regarding the reason for delayed reply, Respondent tendered her unconditional apology and stated the reason for the same being the delay in gathering the information from the concerned deemed PIOs.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observed at the outset that reply to instant RTI applications has been given by the Respondent after a delay of more than two months. Further, no substantial explanation for such abject failure has been explained by the Respondent.
10. During hearing, the reason accorded by the Respondent is rather irksome as it was incumbent upon the Public Authority to proactively maintain/access the RTI database and ensure that RTI Applications (online/offline) are dealt with in a time bound manner. Failure to dispose the RTI Application for the simple reason that it could not be disposed owing to delay in gathering the information from the custodian of their own department is reflective of the disregard for the RTI Act, the Respondent organization has. The act of the then concerned CPIO and the present CPIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 3 of 7 respect towards the Commission. Accordingly, their conduct deserves admonition. The Respondent is cautioned to exercise due diligence and follow the timeline mandates and ensure that RTI Application could not be left unanswered for unreasonable causes.
11. Now, coming to relief of information is concerned, it is noted with concern that denial of information against point No. 1 & 2 of RTI application in one liner "No such information exists with this public authority." without substantiating the same under any relevant exemption clause of the RTI Act, is vague and evasive. Further, the oral submissions tendered by Ms. Manjeeta Mahajan Srivastava, CPIO during hearing is not matching with the reply given vide letter dated 29.08.2024. The CPIO is expected to have applied their mind and should have invoked Section 6(3)/5 (4) of the RTI Act for facilitating the information to Appellant. However, the Respondents have failed to discharge their duties in the true spirit of the RTI Act which prima facie appears intentional.
12. Here, it is noteworthy that earlier, the denial of information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act regarding the marks secured by the selected candidates used to be upheld by the Commission in its 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.
13. It may not be out of place to mention that the confidence in the public recruitment/selection process would be boosted by disclosing the names of the selected candidates and the marks obtained by them. 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 because public recruitment has to enjoy the confidence of the public. 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.
File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 4 of 714. 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. 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.File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 5 of 7
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."
15. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the copy of list of the candidates selected for the post of SR. PROJECT EXECUTIVE (CIVIL) ADVT. NO. 01/2023 in order of merit along with the marks obtained by them under the recruitment notice, category-wise, which will automatically depict the cut-off marks for each category, barring the other personal details of the candidates, free of cost to the appellant, within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
16. This requirement may be noted for all future recruitments and exams for promotions by way of upfront public disclosure.
17. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
18. At point No. 3 of RTI Application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO as the same was in line with the provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is 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 Date File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, NBCC India Ltd., NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/631480 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)