Central Information Commission
Arvind Bhatt vs Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya on 13 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Total 13 cases -
1. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626568
2. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626567
3. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626566
4. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626565
5. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626561
6. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626560
7. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626558
8. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626559
9. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626556
10.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626552
11.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626550
12.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626547
13.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626549
Arvind Bhatt .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dr. Harisingh Gaur University,
Sagar, RTI Cell,
Madhya Pradesh- 470003 ...प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2026, 10.02.2026
Date of Decision : 09.01.2026, 12.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as the parties are common and the queries
raised in the RTI application are similar in nature.
1. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626568
Page 1 of 32
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में ह िंदी हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
3. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.Page 2 of 32
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
4. The FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
2. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626567 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में भूगोल हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
6. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
7. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.Page 3 of 32
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
8. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
3. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626566 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में भूगभभ शास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
10. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
Page 4 of 3211. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
12. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
4. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626565 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में भूगभभ शास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।Page 5 of 32
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
14. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
15. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
16. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
5. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626561 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:Page 6 of 32
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में रसायन शास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
18. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
19. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
20. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
6. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626560 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024
Page 7 of 32
First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024
Information sought:
21. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क
22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में राजनीतीशास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
22. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
23. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."Page 8 of 32
24. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
7. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626560 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
25. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में राजनीतीशास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
26. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
27. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.Page 9 of 32
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
28. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
8. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626558 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
29. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में मानिशास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
30. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
31. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
Page 10 of 32"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
32. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
9. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626559 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
33. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में िाहिज्य हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।Page 11 of 32
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
34. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
35. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
36. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
10.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626556 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
37. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:Page 12 of 32
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में िाहिज्य हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
38. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
39. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
40. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
11.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626552 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024
Page 13 of 32
CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024
Information sought:
41. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में हशक्षाशास्त्र (Education) हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
42. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
43. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."Page 14 of 32
44. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
12.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626550 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
45. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में दशभनशास्त्र हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनु शंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
46. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
47. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.Page 15 of 32
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
48. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
13.CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/626549 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2024 Information sought:
49. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. नवश्वनवद्यालय के नवज्ञापन क्रमां क R./DoFA/Associate Professor/2023/2416 निनां क 22.02.2023 के पररपेक्ष्य में व्यािसाहयक प्रबिंधन हिभाग में एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नकये गये समस्त आवे िकों के आवे िन फामग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
2. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के चयन हे र्ु स्क्रीननंग कमेटी के सिस्ों द्वारा की गई अनुशंसा की ररपोटग की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
3. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि के साक्षात्कार हे र्ु बु लाये गये योग्य आवे िकों की सूची की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् ।
4. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु आवे िक के ग्रेवेन्स (Grievance) एवं ग्रेवेन्स के ननवारण की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
5. एसोनसएट प्रोफेसर पि हे र्ु नसलेक्शन कमेटी के नमननट् स की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।
6. चयननर् आवे िक के आवे िन के साथ संलग्न समस्त िस्तावे जों की सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर् पूवग संस्था के वे र्न/आयकर (फामग-16) / शोध पत्र एवं अनुभव संबंधी िस्तावे जों जो इस नवश्वनवद्यालय में प्रस्तुर् नकये गये हैं उनकी सत्यानपर् छायाप्रनर्।"
50. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2024.
Page 16 of 3251. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005.
2. Information pertains to third party and no larger public interest involves in it and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
4. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
5. Please refer reply at serial no. 02.
6. The applications submitted by the candidates including copies of marks sheet are the personal information and no larger public interest is involved in its disclosure and as such it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act 2005."
52. FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024 disposed of the First Appeal directing the CPIO to furnish relevant information at point No. 3 of RTI application within 15 days.
53. Challenging the order of the FAA's and CPIO's reply appellant filed instant set of Second Appeals before the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 08.01.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Shri Brij Bhushan Singh, Law Officer-cum-CPIO present through audio-conference.
54. A written statement filed by the CPIO in each instant Second Appeals narrating the chain of events, correspondences and also compliance of FAA's order vide letter(s) dated 27.03.2024 is taken on record.
55. Further, a written submissions (on common lines) filed by the Appellant in each of these Second Appeals are taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of reference:
"I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Page 17 of 32
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 before the Respondent University seeking information relating to the recruitment/selection process, appointments, qualifications, records and institutional decisions of the University.
2. The information sought squarely relates to public employment, public authority decision-making, and statutory compliance, and therefore falls within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The CPIO, vide reply dated 19.03.2024, denied the information by invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act in a blanket and mechanical manner, without:
o specifying the exact sub-clause of Section 8, o providing a reasoned or speaking order, and o examining the issue of larger public interest.
4. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a First Appeal on 19.02.2024, which was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 22.03.2024, merely endorsing the CPIO's response without independent reasoning.
5. The FAA failed to act as a quasi-judicial authority, thereby frustrating the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. II. ADDITIONAL FACTUAL CONTEXT NECESSITATING DISCLOSURE
1. The information sought by the Appellant is of exceptional public importance, particularly because:
(a) Non-compliance with Mandatory Recruitment Disclosure Requirements • During the recruitment process in question, the University failed to upload several mandatory documents and disclosures on its website, which are required under o UGC Regulations, o recruitment advertisements, and o established norms of transparency in public appointments.
• Such non-uploading directly impacts: o fairness of selection, o equal opportunity to candidates, o and public scrutiny of institutional functioning. • The RTI application was filed precisely to obtain these withheld but mandatory records, which cannot be denied under the guise of "personal information".
(b) History of Irregular Recruitment in the University (2013) Page 18 of 32 • It is a matter of judicial record that the earlier recruitment process of the University in the year 2013 was found to be unfair, and the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh ordered re-interviews in that recruitment. • This historical context demonstrates a pattern of recruitment irregularities, making transparency in subsequent recruitments even more critical and unquestionably in larger public interest.
(c) Cancellation of Appointment Due to Irregularities (Same Recruitment) • In the very recruitment process for which the present RTI application was submitted, the appointment of Dr. Radhika Chaudhary Kureel was subsequently cancelled due to irregularities in the recruitment process. • This undisputed fact clearly establishes that: o the recruitment process suffered from procedural defects, o concerns raised by the Appellant were bona fide, o and disclosure of recruitment records is essential to uphold accountability.
• Once an appointment is cancelled on grounds of irregularity, the recruitment process ceases to enjoy any presumption of correctness, and denial of information becomes wholly unjustified. III. OBJECTION OF THE UNIVERSITY REGARDING LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPELLANT • The Right to Information Act, 2005 confers the right to seek information on every citizen of India. The Act does not prescribe any requirement that the information seeker must be a participant, beneficiary, or applicant in the subject matter for which information is sought. • The Respondent University's contention that the Appellant was not a participant in the recruitment process and therefore cannot seek information is wholly misconceived. Such an argument, if accepted, would defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act, which aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. • Recruitment to public posts in a Central University is a matter of public employment and public interest. Information relating to selection procedures, qualifications, committee decisions, and statutory compliance belongs to the public domain and is open to scrutiny by any citizen. • It is submitted that the Appellant's standing is further strengthened by the fact that he is a recognized whistle-blower who has previously disclosed serious irregularities in the Respondent University's recruitment processes. His present RTI application is a bona fide continuation of that public-interest role and cannot be dismissed on technical or extraneous grounds.
Page 19 of 32• The objection of locus standi raised by the Respondent is therefore not only illegal but also indicative of an attempt to shield public records from legitimate scrutiny.
IV. STATUS OF THE APPELLANT AS A WHISTLE-BLOWER • The Appellant is a recognized whistle-blower who had earlier brought to the notice of competent authorities serious irregularities relating to illegal recruitment and misconduct in the Respondent University. Due to the sensitive nature of the disclosures and apprehension of threats, the Appellant was granted protection by the district administration and police authorities.
• An official communication dated 27.03.2015, issued by the Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, District Sagar (Letter Attached), explicitly acknowledges the Appellant as a whistle-blower and directs that adequate and appropriate security be provided to him in view of threats arising out of disclosure of illegal appointments and corruption in the University. The said letter has been placed on record and forms part of the present proceedings.
• The present RTI application is directly connected with the same administrative actions which were earlier questioned by the Appellant in his capacity as a whistle-blower. Seeking documentary records under the RTI Act is a lawful continuation of that public spirited effort to ensure transparency and accountability.
V. ARBITRARY AND MECHANICAL INVOCATION OF SECTION 8 OF THE RTI ACT • The Respondent has invoked Section 8 of the RTI Act in a blanket and mechanical manner, without identifying the specific sub-clause applicable to each item of information sought. Such non-speaking denial is impermissible in law.
• The information sought by the Appellant pertains to recruitment processes, appointments, qualifications, selection records, and compliance with statutory norms. These are matters directly connected with public activity and public employment and do not constitute private or personal information divorced from public interest. • Even assuming, without admitting, that any portion of the information may touch upon personal details, the Respondent has failed to apply the mandatory test of larger public interest, which is an essential precondition before invoking Section 8(1)(j). In the present case, larger public interest is manifest due to:
➢ non-uploading of mandatory recruitment disclosures; ➢ past judicial findings of unfair recruitment (2013 re-interview order);Page 20 of 32
➢ cancellation of an appointment from the same recruitment process due to irregularities.
• The Respondent has also failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act, if it believed that any third-party interests were involved. Straightaway denial without initiating the Section 11 process renders the refusal illegal.
• The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that exemptions under Section 8 must be narrowly construed, supported by reasons, and balanced against public interest. The Respondent's reply does not satisfy any of these legal requirements. VI. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION A. Whether information relating to recruitment processes that are demonstrably irregular can be denied under Section 8 of the RTI Act? B. Whether records relating to public appointments, selection committees, qualifications and compliance with statutory norms can be treated as "personal information"?
C. Whether denial of information, despite proven irregularities and past judicial intervention, violates the object and spirit of the RTI Act? VII. LEGAL POSITION & JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
1. CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench, Supreme Court, 13.11.2019) • Blanket invocation of Section 8 is impermissible. • Public interest must be weighed in every case.
• Reasoned orders are mandatory.
2. Dr. Jayshree Dubey v. CIC (High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Order dated 03.04.2025) • Qualifications, appointments, experience certificates and recruitment records of persons appointed to public posts are not exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
• Non-disclosure in such cases undermines transparency and accountability. This judgment is binding on the Respondent University.
3. Consistent CIC Jurisprudence • Recruitment-related information cannot be withheld merely by labeling it as personal or confidential.
• Where irregularities exist, public interest in disclosure is at its highest.
VIII. ILLEGALITIES COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY Page 21 of 32 The Respondent University has:
1. Passed non-speaking and mechanical orders;
2. Misapplied Section 8 without clause-wise justification;
3. Ignored larger public interest despite: o past High Court intervention, o cancellation of appointment due to irregularities;
4. Failed to follow Section 11 procedure, if third-party information was claimed;
5. Undermined the transparency mandate of the RTI Act.
IX. RELIEFS SOUGHT The Appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
1. Set aside the orders of the CPIO and FAA;
2. Direct disclosure of complete information sought in the RTI application dated 18.01.2024;
3. Alternatively, direct fresh consideration with:
o clause-wise application of Section 8, o detailed speaking order, o disclosure of all non-exempt records;
4. Initiate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act against erring officials for wrongful denial; 5. Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice, transparency and accountability.
X. CONCLUSION The present case is not a routine RTI dispute.
It concerns systemic transparency in university recruitment, an area already tainted by past judicial findings and proven irregularities. Denying information in such circumstances is arbitrary, unlawful and destructive of public trust."
56. On being queried by the Bench, the Appellant stated that he has not served the copy of his written submissions to the CPIO. On the advice of the CIC, he agreed to provide a copy of the same to the CPIO and the CPIO, in turn also agreed to file his response to this effect, thereafter, receiving the copy of the relied upon documents of the Appellant.
Interim Order on 09.01.2026:
57. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted, at the outset, that the issues raised by Page 22 of 32 the Appellant in his written submissions need to be decided on merits after giving a fair opportunity to the CPIO to give their substantial response, if any.
58. In view of the above and considering the principles of natural justice, the Commission deems it fit that Appellant should serve a copy of his written submissions to the CPIO within one day immediately after the hearing. Upon receipt of it, the CPIO may file his counter arguments along with supporting documents, if any, with a copy served to the Appellant, free of cost within one week, thereafter.
59. Therefore, the instant Second Appeals stands adjourned for final hearing, accordingly.
60. The Registry is directed to issue fresh hearing notice to the parties of early date.
The Appeals are reserved for final order.
Relevant Facts emerged during hearing on 10.02.2026:-
Following were present:
Appellant: Shri Arvind Bhatt present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Brij Bhushan Singh, Law Officer-cum-CPIO along with Shri Rajneesh Jain, SO/Deemed PIO, both present through audio-conference.
61. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
62. CPIO stated that in compliance of directions of the Bench on last date of hearing, CPIO filed a written statement on the CIC's portal on 15.01.2025. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for the ease of reference -
"A. I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:-
(i) That the PIO sought comments/information from the Deemed PIO, DoFA Section, who replied vide his letter No. DoFA/RTI/2026/16 dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure-1).
(ii) The Appellant sought the information regarding the candidates called for interview and also the applications of all the applicants applied for the post of Professors and Associate Professors against the Advt. No. R. DoFA/Prof./2023/2416 & 2417 dated 22.02.2023 in the Departments of Hindi, Geography, Applied Geology, Chemistry, Political Science, Anthropology.
Commerce, Education, Philosophy, Business Management, and various other Departments. He has been provided information regarding the candidates called for the interview. However, he was denied the applications of the candidates who applied on the Samarth Portal for these positions on the ground that applications submitted by the candidates, including copies of mark sheets, are personal information and no larger public interest is involved Page 23 of 32 in their disclosure, and as such, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 (as amended vide DPDP Act, 2023). B. Reply to point No. II. 1 (a):
It is submitted that, the Vishwavidyalaya is disclosing the publicly available information (Vishwavidyalaya official website), and the remaining information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) as it was considered personal information and also pertains to third party under Section 11, which is in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
C. Reply to point No. II. 1 (b):
It is submitted that, the year 2013 recruitment is not related with the present RTI applications of the appellant and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal seat at Jabalpur under Writ Appeal, for consideration.
D. Reply to point No. II. 1 (c):
It is submitted that, the submission of the present appellant that the appointment of Dr. Radhika Chaudhary Kureel was subsequently cancelled due to irregularities in the recruitment process, it is submitted that the allegations are misconceived. The fact is that Dr. Radhika Kureel, Associate Professor, who had submitted misleading facts regarding their eligibility at the time of appointment. Upon verification of her documents from her previous organizations, they were found to be false, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor constituted Enquiry Committee, and based on the recommendations of so constituted enquiry committee, the Executive Council recalled her appointment order, and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of MP at Jabalpur. Ε. Reply to point No. III:
It is submitted that, the appellant was not a participant in the said recruitment process, therefore, information as to personal records related to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not appropriate and cant be given. F. Reply to point No. II. 1 (c):
It is submitted that, in reference to the above, first of all, it would be apposite to state something about the Appellant. Appellant is neither a whistleblower nor is he concerned with exposing irregularities. He has a vested interest. He is, in fact, representative of Furniture Supplier/Company, namely M/s Jalaram Pvt. Ltd, Surat (Gujarat). He used to supply the furniture, etc., to the University on behalf of the said company since the time when this University was a State University. After the upgradation of this University as a Central University in the year 2009, the said Company, on behalf of which he had been working, could not get orders for supplying the furniture to the University. Since then, the appellant has been working to demean the Office of the Vice-Chancellor and other higher functionaries of the University on the behest of RTI applications.
G. Reply to point No. V:
It is submitted that it is respectfully submitted that Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 has been recently amended via Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023, significantly changing the exemption for personal information by removing the vital "public interest" override, making personal Page 24 of 32 data more easily exempt from disclosure, and potentially reducing transparency by creating a conflict with the right to information. The original clause allowed disclosure if in "larger public interest," but the amendment simplifies it to just "information which relates to personal information," raising concerns that public officials can now deny crucial information by labeling it personal, despite larger public interest.
• Amended Provision (via DPDP Act, 2023): It exempts "information which relates to personal information," effectively removing the public interest test and creating a near absolute bar on personal data disclosure. Public Authorities can now deny requests for information about officials or issues by classifying them as "personal".
In view of the aforesaid amendment, Public Authority no longer need to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy. More information about public servants (e.g., assets, qualifications, etc.) could be denied as "personal".
H. Reply to point No. VI:
It is pertinent to mention here that against the said advertisements candidates applied through Samarth Portal developed by the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India. The screening of the applications was conducted by the academic experts on the Samarth Portal itself. After screening, the screening report was shown to the concerned candidates on the portal itself and they were given opportunity to raise their grievance, if any. After considering their genuine grievance, the academic scores were modified, wherever required, by the Committee consisting of the academic experts. Thereafter, shortlisted candidates were given opportunity to appear in the interview before the Selection Committee consisting of academic experts, visitor nominee and Vice- Chancellor as Chairperson. After the approval of the recommendation of the Selection Committee by the Executive Council, names of the Selected Candidates were displayed on the University Website and as such full transparency was maintained in the said recruitment.
I. Reply to point No. VII:
The present appellant under RTI who is not the candidate in the said recruitment process nor the bona-fide information seeker wants to invade the privacy of the candidates by seeking their applications which includes personal records like mark sheets, caste/category certificate, Form- 16, etc. Such personal information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI, Act, 2005 as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 in the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act has been 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. Jam Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:Page 25 of 32
"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, A CRs, 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..."
Please refer to the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Smt. Anandi Ramalingam, Information Commissioner in the Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/134421 in the matter of Jayashree (Appellant) vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi (Annexure 2.), wherein the appellant had no genuine claim for the larger public interest and the appeal was dismissed by the Commission.
As it is already submitted that the Section 8(1)(j) is amended completely on 13.11.2025, where there is no scope for public interest. The said amendment has now completely exempted the "personal information". J. Reply With Regard To CIC Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/615731 dated 18.06.2025, under Sr. No. 13 in the table:
It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant had already filed a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission in the said matter vide No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2024/615731 dated 18.06.2025, wherein Smt. Anandi Ramalingam, Information Commissioner passed an order dated 18.07.2025 stating that "in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed"
(Annexure-3) In view of the above submission and rule position, the written submissions made by the appellant are misconceived and devoid of merit and as such he has rightly been denied the applications submitted by the candidates including personal information like copies of mark sheets, caste/category certificate, Form-16, etc. in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It is therefore prayed that, on the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeals are misconceived, based on surmises and conjecture and therefore, sans merit and is liable to be dismissed."
63. CPIO narrated the factual background by stating that Appellant was the former furniture supplier of the University whose contract for supply was put to an end way back. In order to satisfy his grudge, Appellant filed multiple RTI Page 26 of 32 application seeking information about the candidates applied for the post of Associate Professor, Assistant Professor for different department against the recruitment advertisement under reference and also asked for the copy of application form along with supporting documents filed by the candidates applied on Samarth portal. CPIO stated that list of candidates was provided to the Appellant, however, the request for application forms was denied to the Appellant as it contains the elements of personal information of third-party and it was held by the University under fiduciary capacity which in any way is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO apprised the Bench that even for the sake of arguments, if the locus-standi be considered vis-à-vis information sought is concerned, it is noteworthy that Appellant was not one of the candidates who applied for the posts and may seek information concerning his claim for recruitment under reference, as such. It was the plea of the CPIO that as the regards aspect of upfront disclosure in compliance of Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the University maintains transparency by disclosing the requisite information including recruitment advertisement, list of selection candidates by updating its website. CPIO claimed that with the upcoming of DPDP Act, 2023, the proviso to Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was also being omitted by gazette notification dated 13.11.2025. Hence, even if the plea of larger public interest is claimed by the Appellant the personal information of third party cannot be disclosed to the applicants with this amendment and also this denial is in line with the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No.10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.2683 of 2010. As regards allegation of Appellant regarding irregularities in appointment, the CPIO clarified that an Enquiry Committee was constituted in this regard and on scrutinizing the marks and relevant experience documents of candidate, it was found fake and the selection of concerned third-party candidate was cancelled. Further, the results of Enquiry Committee was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench. CPIO summed up his arguments by adding the allegations of the Appellant in his written statement are baseless and denied by the CPIO, and the recruitment of 2013 which is subject in issue is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench as on date. There was no malafide denial of information on the part of the University as per the version of CPIO.
64. Rejoinder to written statement of CPIO filed by the Appellant is taken on record.
Page 27 of 3265. Appellant rebutted the submissions of CPIO and contended that denial of request for information by the CPIO regarding Public Recruitment is not as per the observation of Higher Courts. Further, the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 ensures that transparency and accountability in the system be maintained by suo moto disclosure of public interest related such information. Moreover, the reliance placed by CPIO on the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to the instant matters as the case of Subhash Chandra Agrawal (supra) relates to the disclosure of property returns and other related information of judges of Supreme Court of India, however, the information sought in the instant RTI applications in question pertains to recruitment which is different. Further, para 59 of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Subhash Chandra Agrawal (supra) on which CPIO relied upon is the obiter dicta of the Court. Appellant pleaded that there is a large scale corruption involved in the Respondent Public Authority while conducting recruitment of their staffs and the CPIO's concerned deliberately avoid to answer the RTI applications in this regard to shelter the erring officials. Appellant prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter and penalize the CPIO under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
66. Heard the parties.
67. The Commission, at the outset, is not willing to probe into the status of Appellant either as a whistle blower/ RTI activist as claimed by Appellant in his written statement or as the former furniture supplier of the University under the name of M/s Jalaram Pvt. Ltd, Surat (Gujarat) whose work orders are put on hold as per the version of the CPIO in their written statement.
68. Upon perusal of records, the Commission observes that the information sought in the RTI applications under reference and grounds raised by the Appellant in these Second Appeals are mainly based on the issues as broadly discussed below -
Issue No. (1) seeking disclosure of marks & list of candidates selected for the subject and the application form along with supporting documents submitted by the candidates, under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, from the CPIO and Issue No. (2) Non-compliance of mandatory upfront disclosure of recruitment advertisement, adherence to UGC guidelines, non- transparency in recruitment process.
Page 28 of 3269. Per contra, the contention of CPIO that the list of candidates selected for the post in different departments as per the advertisement in question has been provided to the Appellant barring the relevant application forms submitted by the candidates on e-samarth portal, as it contains the elements of personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. To substantiate his denial of request, the CPIO placed reliance on Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority, no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing Public interest against privacy. CPIO further placed reliance on para 59 of Hon'ble Apex Court citation in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No.10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.2683 of 2010. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:-
"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, A CRs, 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..."
70. Rebutting the contentions of the CPIO, the Appellant claimed that aforesaid para 59 is only a dicta and therefore, not applicable to the facts of the cases in hand.
71. Issue No. 1:- However, this Bench of CIC cannot overlook the fact that above referred para 59 of Subhash Chandra Agrawal's (supra) is only an 'Obiter Dicta' before arriving at a decision but again the said Dicta has its roots in the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. Interestingly, the fact that application form along with supporting documents submitted by the candidates contain elements of personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. For that purpose, the hearing Bench relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v.
Page 29 of 32Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012 wherein it was held:
"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under cl use(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made bonafide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner h s not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."
72. In light of the above discussion on Issue No. (1), and considering the fact that list of candidates has been provided to the Appellant, nothing more remains for intervention of the Commission on the said issue, accordingly.
73. Issue No. (2), regarding mandatory disclosure of information pertaining to recruitment advertisement, UGC guidelines follow ups and its related Page 30 of 32 orders, circulars, notifications, etc., the Commission gives the following recommendations specified below:-
73.1. The Commission finds substance in the issue raised by the Appellant as it is obligatory on every Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 to promote public scrutiny based on transparency and accountability in the working system of every Public Authority by securing access to information to the citizens, as enshrined under the preamble of RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent University should provide access to Recruitment Advertisement, list of Selected Candidates, qualification of Selected Candidates and other related information suo moto in public domain through official website, to the public as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 73.2. This action as above finds resonance in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v.
UOI & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website.
74. Hence, the Commission deems it expedient, as per Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, for recommending the Respondent Public Authority giving effect to the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act as recently directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990 of 2021 for facilitating the requisite information as sought in the RTI application under reference through website, to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information. This step will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
75. A copy of this order is marked to the Vice Chancellor, Dr. Harisingh Gour University, Sagar, M.P. for considering the recommendations of the Commission given at para 73 above, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this RTI Act, 2005 by taking effective steps for its implementation and for promoting conformity, accordingly. A compliance report of the recommendation be filed before the Commission through CPIO within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
76. No scope for further intervention lies in the matters.
Page 31 of 32The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लिंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Copy to:-
Prof. (Dr.) Yashwant Singh Thakur, Vice Chancellor Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh- 470003 Shri Arvind Bhatt Page 32 of 32 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to improve upon following provision(s) of suo-motu disclosure in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section(1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005:
(i) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its function.
(ii) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)