Central Information Commission
Amandeep vs National Hydroelectric Power ... on 1 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/NHPCL/A/2024/630386
Amandeep .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
NHPC Limited, NHPC Office
Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad-
121003 (Haryana) .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025
Date of Decision : 28.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 14.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 18.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
1. What are the cut-off marks for promotion from Deputy Manager (Electrical) E-04 to Manager (Electrical) E-05 in reference to Promotion order issued on 30.04.2024?Page 1 of 10
2. What are the total marks obtained by Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N for departmental promotions w.e.f. 01.04.2024?
3. What are the total marks obtained by Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N in Performance Appraisal Reports for departmental promotions w.e.f. 01.04.2024?
4. What are the total marks obtained by Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N in Locational Weightage for departmental promotions w.e.f. 01.04.2024?
5. What are the total marks obtained by Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N in Interview conducted through video conferencing on 22.03.2024 for departmental promotions w.e.f. 01.04.2024?
6. Did Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N, qualified the interview conducted through video conferencing on 22.03.2024 for departmental promotions w.e.f. 01.04.2024?
7. Please mention the exact reason or reasons, for not recommending Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N for promotion to the post of Manager (Electrical) E-05.
8. Please provide the career growth prospectus in the appointment letter and agreement signed between to Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N and NHPC Limited at the time of the recruitment in June 2014 OR Provide the copy of agreement signed between Amandeep, Deputy Manager (Electrical) Employee No. 104187-N and NHPC Limited at the time of the recruitment in June 2014
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.06.2024 stating as under:
1. Information as asked for by the appellant is not maintained in complied form. Its collection and compilation would disproportionately divert the resources of this office from the discharge of its normal function, thereby attract the provision of under section 7(9) of RTI Act 2005.Page 2 of 10
1. 68
2. 54
3. 10
4. 04
5. NO
6. The Information sought by the applicant is in the form of query/interrogative question/ opinion/clarification and the same does not fall under the definition of information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.
7. Copy of agreement enclosed.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 02.07.2024, held as under:
" The Appellate Authority found that an appropriate reply was provided by the CPIO, and therefore, there is no intervention required in the matter, and the appeal is disposed of. "
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 17.11.2025 has been received from Shri Deepak Kumar Gautam, GM and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..With reference to notice of hearing no:
CIC/NHPCL/A/2024/630386 dated 28/10/2025 in the matter of Sh. Amandeep v/s NHPC Ltd which is scheduled to be held on 26/11/2025 at 11.55 AM before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Sh. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, we are enclosing herewith our written submission for your kind consideration please.
Reply 1, 2 and 3: Applicant has requested to provide cut-off marks for promotion from. Deputy Manager (Electrical) E-04 to Manager (Electrical) E-05, i.e., total marks obtained by last candidate promoted from Deputy Manager (Electrical) E-04 to Manager (Electrical) E-05 as per promotion order issued on 30.04.2024.
In this regard it is intimated that information sought by applicant is not part of record. Providing of this information means, creating of new information which is not mandate of RTI Act. As per RTI Act, only such information as is available and existing and held by the Page 3 of 10 public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided.
However relevant clauses of the Promotion policy in vogue t that period is reproduced
11. PROMOTION FROM E2 TO E3, E3 TO E4, E4 ΤΟ E5 & E5 ΤΟ Ε6 11.1 Promotions from E2 to E3, E3 to E4, E4 to E5 & E5 to E6 grade shall be based on eligibility, merit subject to following percentage of eligible executives:
Grade % Norms for Promotion.
From To
E2 E3 80
E3 E4 70
E4 E5 60
E5 E6 50
The marks secured by each eligible executive from PARS, Seniority, Qualification, Field Posting and marks awarded by DPC will be aggregated. Those executives who have been found suitable for promotion will be ranked in order of merit, depending on the grade where they are promoted % norms affixed as above shall decide number of executives to be promoted in the next grade. Where aggregate marks is the same, they will be ranked in order of seniority.
ANNEXURE-III of the Promotion Policy regarding DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS UNDER PROMOTION POLICY AND RULES FOR NHPC EXECUTIVES is enclosed. The minimum qualifying marks for PAR and Interview has been mentioned.
Executives not achieving the minimum qualifying marks in any of the two criteria will not be considered for promotion. Due to this, executives obtaining maximum marks in all other criteria, and not obtaining the minimum marks in this are not recommended by DPC for promotion. Hence the cut-off marks cannot fixed.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Gautam, Shri Vivek Kumar Jaiswal, DGM(HR), Shri Ramesh Kumar Mittal, DGM(Civil)- participated in the hearing.Page 4 of 10
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 18.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the complete information has not been provided by the PIO till date. He stated information sought at point No. 1 of the RTI Application has not been provided by the PIO i.e. cut off marks for promotion from Deputy Manager (Electrical) E-04 to Manager (Electrical) E-05 in reference to Promotion order issued on 30.04.2024.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant as per their available records in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission interjected and counselled the Respondent that category wise cut off marks and marks of selected candidates of a public recruitment or promotion 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.
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the core contention raised by the Appellant during hearing is that the category wise cut off marks in reference to for promotion from Deputy Manager (Electrical) E-04 to Manager (Electrical) E-05 in reference to Promotion order issued on 30.04.2024. In response to which, the Respondent claimed that category wise cut off marks 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 Page 5 of 10 information is not maintained in the consolidated form consolidated form, collation and compilation of said information would divert the resources of the Respondent Public Authority, therefore, they claimed inability to provide information sought to the Appellant in view of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.
5. Here, it is noteworthy that earlier the denial of information regarding the marks secured by the selected candidates or category wise cut off marks 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. Here, the Commission would also like to invite attention of the Respondents towards a judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023.
6. It may not be out of place to mention that the confidence in the selection process and promotion 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 and promotion process would be promoted. The disclosure of the list of category wise 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. Such disclosure would promote transparency and accountability and Page 6 of 10 dispel the lingering doubts about wrongdoings in the public recruitment process and promotion process. Such disclosures would strengthen the recruitment and promotion process by boosting public confidence in it.
7. 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 Page 7 of 10 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.
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 Page 8 of 10 advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk."
12. Here, it is pertinent to note that where the information of any officer of the same department is sought by the applicant to strengthen/defend his own service matter, then bar of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not applicable in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023 with the following observations -
"...5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to NC: 2023: KHC:29928 reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order...."
13. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the copy of category-wise cut off marks along with their name for promotion from Deputy Manager (Electrical) E-04 to Manager (Electrical) E-05 in reference to Promotion order issued on Page 9 of 10 30.04.2024., which is the subject in issue, barring other personal identifying details of the candidates, free of cost to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
15. No further relief can be granted in these matters.
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 Copy To:
The FAA, Executive Director, NHPC Limited, NHPC Office Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad-121003 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)