Central Information Commission
Shubham Jain vs National Law University, Delhi on 11 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NLUDL/A/2024/621453
Shubham Jain .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
National Law University, Delhi,
Golf Course Road, Pocket 1, Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025
Date of Decision : 10.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 16.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide the certified copy of marks Details of SHUBHAM JAIN, roll no -2040 given by each member of interview panel and rank of Shubham Jain amongst all Page 1 of 13 candidates appeared in interview of Assistant Registrar on 25th November 2023.
2. Kindly provide the certified copy of the list of merit of all candidates appeared in Interview of Assistant Registrar on 25th November 2023.
3. Kindly provide the certified copy of Notesheet signed by competent authority explaining the reasons for not choosing anyone of the candidates appeared on 25th November 2023 as suitable for Assistant Registrar."
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.04.2024 stating as under:
"1. The information (Annexure-I) is available in public domain on the University website.
2. The Annexure-II is attached herewith.
3. Refer to the Point No.01.
Annexure-I:-
This is in continuation to the advertisement for various Non-Teaching Posts issued on 12.07.2023, it is notified that the following candidates are provisionally selected for the posts against the vacant posts as advertised vide the above reference:
Deputy Registrar: 01 Post (Unreserved)
1. Roll No. 1029 Assistant Registrar: 01 Post (Unreserved) None found suitable.
Annexure-II List of Shortlisted Candidates for the Post of Assistant Registrar S. No Roll No. Name of the Candidate Marks Obtained (Out of 100) 29 2029 Rekha Nair N. 61 40 2040 Shubham Jain 56 24 2024 Rajeev Kumar 55 35 2035 Sanjay Kumar 53 8 2008 C S Suraj 50 Page 2 of 13 34 2034 Sandeep Bansal 46 23 2023 Pranjal Agarwal 45 31 2031 Rishi Sirohi 45 42 2042 Sunil Devasia 45 5 2005 Anand Yadav 44
3. The PIO furnished a reply in respect of RTI Appeal 19.04.2024 to the Appellant on 15.05.2024 stating as under:
"This is with reference to your RTI Appeal as mentioned above dated 19.04.2024, please find below herewith the requisite information pertaining to National Law University Delhi:
1. The marks obtained by the candidate in the interview are 26 out of 50.
All the other information as sought by applicant is denied under Clause-II 8(J) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. The applicant has obtained 26 marks out of 50 in the interview. Information regarding marks/merit of all candidates appeared in the interview is denied under Clause-II 8(J) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Information denied under Clause-II 8(J) of RTI Act, 2005."
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 18.05.2024, held as under.
"After considering the grounds of appeal, the PIO concerned is directed to provide the required information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the appeal stands disposed off."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. Written submission dated 30.10.2025 has been received from the Respondent and has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
1. "..That the Respondent, National Law University, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "University") is a premier institution of legal education established under Act No. 1 of 2008 of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Page 3 of 13 and is a grant-in-aid University substantially funded by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The University, while functioning as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has at all times endeavoured to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in its recruitment processes as well as in its discharge of statutory obligations under the said Act.
2. That the Appellant, Mr. Shubham Jain, is a resident of K-
113, Paramount Tulip Society, Saharanpur-247001, Uttar Pradesh, Saharanpur, 251318 who had applied as a candidate in the recruitment process conducted by the National Law University, Delhi for the post of Assistant Registrar. The Appellant participated in the written examination and, having qualified therein, was called for the interview. However, despite having appeared before the duly constituted Selection Committee, he was not recommended for appointment, as the Committee, upon due consideration, found none of the candidates suitable for selection to the said post
3. That the present reply is being filed on behalf of the respondent, Public Information Officer, National Law University, Delhi, in response to the Second Appeal preferred by the Appellant, Mr. Shubham Jain arising out of his Right of Information application dated 11.04.2024, concerning the recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar. A copy of the RTI application dated 11.04.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure C-1.
4. At the very outset, it is respectfully submitted the present appeal is misconceived and unsustainable inasmuch as the University has duly complied with its statutory obligations under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the Appellant is seeking to convert the instant proceedings into a forum for questioning the outcome of a duly conducted recruitment process, which is beyond the permissible scope of the Act.
BRIEF FACTS
5. That the National Law University, Delhi, in furtherance of its statutory obligations and in order to fill up various Non- Teaching Posts, issued a public advertisement on 13.07.2023 inviting applications from eligible candidates with last date of submission being 05.08.2023. The process was duly notified and conducted in a transparent manner, Page 4 of 13 ensuring equal opportunity to all aspirants. A copy of the Public Advertisement is annexed herewith as Annexure C-2.
6. That it is further submitted that, in continuation of the aforesaid advertisement, the University issued a Notification dated 27.10.2023, informing all eligible applicants about the conduct of a written examination for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Registrar. As per the said notification, the written test was scheduled to be held on 25.11.2023 at 11:00 a.m. The examination was to be conducted solely for the purpose of shortlisting candidates for interview. The entire process was held under due supervision and in accordance with the notified procedure, ensuring transparency and fairness in the conduct of the test. A copy of the Notification dated 27.10.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure C-3.
7. That subsequently, the University issued a Notification dated 15.12.2023 bearing Ref. No. NLUD/Admin./2023/2650, publishing the result of the written examination. Out of the total 46 eligible candidates, 27 appeared for the examination, and based on their performance, 10 candidates were shortlisted for the interview. The Appellant, Mr. Shubham Jain, was among those who qualified the written test, securing 56 marks out of 100, and was accordingly shortlisted to appear before the Selection Committee for the interview scheduled on 09.01.2024 at 11:00 a.m. at the National Law University. Delhi. A copy of the list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Assistant Registrar is annexed herewith as Annexure C-4. A copy of the Notification dated 15.12.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure C-5.
8. That upon being shortlisted, the Appellant was called to appear before the duly constituted Selection Committee for the interview held by the University. The interview was conducted in accordance with the prescribed norms and under due supervision to ensure transparency and fairness. The Appellant obtained 26 marks out of 50 in the said interview.
9. That the final result for the post of Assistant Registrar was declared by the National Law University, Delhi vide Notification dated 12.03.2024. The said Notification, issued after due consideration of the recommendations of the duly constituted Selection Committee, categorically stated that Page 5 of 13 "none found suitable" for appointment to the advertised post. A copy of the Notification dated 12.03.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure С-6.
10. That seeking transparency and clarity with respect to the aforesaid decision, as well as to ascertain his own assessment in the selection process, the Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.04.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Through the said RTI, he sought:
(i) certified copies of the marks awarded to him by each member of the interview panel and his final rank among all candidates;
(ii) certified copy of the list of merit of all candidates who appeared in the interview held on 25.11.2023; and
(iii) a certified copy of the notesheet or proceedings signed by the competent authority explaining the reasons for not selecting any candidate as suitable for the post of Assistant Registrar.
11. That in response to the Appellant's RTI application dated 11.04.2024, the Public Information Officer(hereinafter referred to as the "PIO"), National Law University, Delhi furnished a reply vide letter dated 16.04.2024. The said communication was duly issued within the statutory period prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the said reply, the University provided information to the extent available on record and as permissible under the Act. Specifically:
a. The Appellant was informed that the relevant information pertaining to the recruitment process was already available in the public domain on the official website of the University;
b. A copy of the list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Assistant Registrar, along with their marks obtained in the written examination, was annexed as Annexure-II to the reply:
c. The Appellant was further informed that no candidate had been found suitable for selection to the post of Assistant Registrar, as notified in the University's result declaration dated 12.03.2024; and d. For the remaining points of the RTI application, reference was made to Point No. 01 of the reply, as the requested information was either already in the public domain or did not fall within the scope of disclosure under the provisions Page 6 of 13 of the Act. A copy of the reply vide letter dated 16.04.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure C-7.
12. That the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated 11.04.2024 primarily pertained to (i) the marks awarded to him by each member of the interview panel along with his rank among all candidates, (ii) the certified list of merit of all candidates who appeared in the interview, and (iii) the note-sheet or proceedings signed by the competent authority explaining the reasons for not selecting any candidate as suitable for the post of Assistant Registrar. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid items of information could not be furnished to the Appellant for the following reasons:
(i) The disclosure of candidate-wise marks and ranking of all interviewees would entail revealing personal information of third parties, which is expressly exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005;
(ii) The proceedings and note-sheets of the Selection Committee form part of the internal deliberative records of the University and are held in a fiduciary capacity, thereby attracting the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act; and
(iii) The final result of the recruitment process, already notified by the University on 12.03.2024 stating that none was found suitable, represented the complete and conclusive decision of the competent authority, leaving no further information to be disclosed within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act.
13. That the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2024 before the First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission, under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, being dissatisfied with the reply dated 16.04.2024 furnished by the Public Information Officer. In his appeal, the Appellant raised the grievance that the information supplied was incomplete, misleading, or false, and his specific demands were:
i. That the information requested was related to the marks obtained by Mr. Shubham Jain in the interview, not in the written examination, and that too separately given by each member of the interview panel along with his final rank amongst all candidates.Page 7 of 13
ii. That it was malicious on the part of the PIO to provide only the list of shortlisted candidates, whereas the request was categorically for the list of merit of all candidates who appeared in the interview. The Appellant alleged that the list of merit is prepared on the basis of final marks and not qualifying marks.
iii. That the information requested under point no. 3 demanded the note-sheet signed by the competent authority or the proceedings of the interview panel explaining the reasons for not choosing any interviewed candidate as suitable for the post of Assistant Registrar. A copy of the First Appeal dated 19.04.2024 before the First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission is annexed herewith as Annexure C-8.
14. That the information sought by the Appellant in his First Appeal was not liable to be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the same pertained to internal assessment records, candidate-wise evaluation data, and deliberations of the Selection Committee, all of which are exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act. The marks awarded by individual panel members and the note sheets reflecting reasons for non-selection constitute confidential evaluative material held by the University in a fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed without compromising the integrity of the recruitment process. Disclosure of such information would amount to divulging the personal assessment of all candidates, which is barred as per the settled principles of confidentiality governing competitive selections in public institutions.
15. That it is pertinent to note that the reply dated 15.05.2024 was furnished by the Public Information Officer. The said reply was issued in continuation of the Appellant's First Appeal dated 19.04.2024, in order to provide further clarification and additional information available on record. The following details were communicated to the Appellant through the said reply:
i That the Appellant had secured 26 marks out of 50 in the interview conducted for the post of Assistant Registrar; ii. That disclosure of candidate-wise marks, individual panel assessment, and the final merit list of all interviewees was not permissible under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Page 8 of 13 Information Act, 2005, as it pertained to personal information of third parties;
iii That the note-sheet or proceedings of the Selection Committee were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act, being held by the University in a fiduciary capacity; and iv. That the final notification dated 12.03.2024, declaring "None Found Suitable," had already been issued and placed in the public domain, and no further information was available on record.
It was therefore clearly conveyed to the Appellant that all available and non-exempt information under the provisions of the RTI Act had already been furnished, and that no additional records beyond those already disclosed could lawfully be provided. A copy of the reply dated 15.05.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure C-9.
16. That being dissatisfied with the information furnished by the Public Information Officer vide replies dated 16.04.2024 and 15.05.2024, the Appellant preferred the present Second Appeal dated 07.10.2025 before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A copy of the second appeal is annexed herewith as Annexure C-10.
17. That it is respectfully submitted that the allegations and contentions raised in the Second Appeal are unfounded, misconceived, and contrary to the settled principles governing disclosure of confidential evaluation records. The Public Information Officer of National Law University, Delhi, has already furnished all permissible and non-exempt information available on record. The information sought by the Appellant relating to candidate-wise marks, merit list, and deliberative notes of the Selection Committee falls squarely within the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the same pertains to personal data and internal assessment material held in fiduciary capacity. The University has acted in good faith, with full transparency, and in strict conformity with the statutory obligations under the Act. There has been no suppression, delay, or mala fide intent on part of the Respondent. The Second Appeal, therefore, merits dismissal being devoid of any substance or cause for further direction.
Page 9 of 13PARA-WISE REPLY
18. The contents of Para 1 are denied as incorrect and misleading. It is specifically denied that there was any misuse of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said provision was correctly invoked since the disclosure of candidate-wise marks, rankings, or assessment by individual panel members would constitute personal information of third parties and amount to an invasion of privacy. Preparation of rank or merit necessarily involves comparative evaluation of all candidates, disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) as it would reveal confidential performance data. It is further clarified that the reply dated 15.05.2024 was not issued in compliance with any order of the First Appellate Authority, as the FAA's order was passed subsequently on 18.05.2024. The said reply was issued voluntarily by the PIO to provide additional clarification and furnish all permissible information. The PIO, therefore, acted in good faith.
A copy of the order dated 18.05.2024 of the FAA is annexed herewith as Annexure C-11.
19. The contents of Para 2 are denied as incorrect and misconceived. The Public Information Officer did not act with any mala fide intent nor furnished misleading information. The list of shortlisted candidates referred to in the reply dated 16.04.2024 was a matter of record and constituted the only document available in relation to the written examination stage. No separate "list of merit" for the interview stage existed, since the duly constituted Selection Committee found none of the candidates suitable for appointment, as reflected in the final notification dated 12.03.2024 declaring "None Found Suitable." It is further submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was correctly applied, as the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is absolute in such cases and is consistently upheld in recruitment-related matters by various public authorities. The University's recruitment process has been conducted in a transparent and lawful manner, and all non-exempt information, including the written examination list already in the public domain, was duly furnished to the Appellant.
20. The contents of Para 3 are denied as incorrect and misconceived. The Public Information Officer acted in good Page 10 of 13 faith and within the framework of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information sought under point no. 3 of the RTI application, namely the note-sheet or internal proceedings of the Selection Committee, constitutes deliberative material containing evaluative discussions and recommendations made by the panel members. Such information is held by the University in a fiduciary capacity. The reference to Section 8(1)(j) was also justified since disclosure of such deliberations would indirectly reveal personal assessment and comparative performance of all candidates, amounting to invasion of privacy. The University has not maintained any secrecy but has ensured transparency within the limits of law, balancing public interest with the confidentiality required for objective and fair selection processes.
21. The contents of the Prayer are denied. Penalty under Section 20 and compensation are not tenable as there has been no willful denial, unreasonable delay, or mala fide action on the part of the Public Information Officer. All available and non-exempt information was duly furnished within the statutory period, and reasons for non-disclosure were clearly communicated as per law. The reply dated 15.05.2024 was furnished prior to the FAA's order and reflected the University's bona fide intent to ensure transparency. No financial or personal loss can be attributed to any act or omission of the University or its officers. The Prayer, therefore, deserves outright rejection..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh Negi, Assistant Registrar and Shri Aditya Sanchdeva, Advocate- participated in the hearing.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/ Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 20.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.Page 11 of 13
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that out of the total 46 eligible candidates, 27 appeared for the written examination, and based on their performance, 10 candidates were shortlisted for the interview. Further, the Appellant, Mr. Shubham Jain, was among those who qualified the written test, securing 56 marks out of 100, and was accordingly shortlisted to appear before the Selection Committee for the interview. They stated that the written examination was only a qualifying exam. In addition, the Appellant obtained 26 marks out of 50 in the said interview. They further submitted that none of the candidates was selected for the post of Assistant Registrar and the Appellant has sought list of such candidates in order of merit, which was not prepared since none of the candidates was found suitable for the post. Since, no one was selected for appointment, upfront disclosure of information was not required.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The written submission dated 30.10.2025 filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self- explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 12 of 13 Copy To:
The FAA, National Law University, Delhi, Golf Course Road, Pocket 1, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)