Central Information Commission
Yashoda vs University Of Delhi on 7 May, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UODEL/A/2026/102174
YASHODA .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI,
RTI CELL, DELHI -110007 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.04.2026
Date of Decision : 30.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.10.2025
CPIO replied on : 14.11.2025
First appeal filed on : 20.11.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 17.12.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 18.01.2026
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2025 seeking the following information:
"REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FOR THIS ADVERTISEMENT NO. ESTAB.IV/297/2023 DATE 09.08.2023 KINDLY PROVIDE ME CUT OFF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN UNDER SC CATEOGRY KINDLY DISPLAY MY INTERVIEW MARKS FOR ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN UNDER SC CATEOGRY Page 1 of 7 PROVIDE RETURN EXAM MARKS FOR ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN UNDER SC CATEOGRY DISPLAY WAITING LIST OF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN UNDER SC CATEOGRY FOUR POSTS ARE VACANT, AFTER THE RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN THE NUMBER OF VACANT POSTS OF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN WILL BE DISPLAYED Four positions are vacant, waiting list will be released."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.11.2025 stating as under:
" The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Deputy Registrar (Recruitment) of the University, who is the deemed PIO under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
Input received from the Deputy Registrar (Recruitment) is enclosed in this regard, which indicates that for the post of Assistant Librarian, cut-off marks for consideration zone for SC category was 105.
Regarding marks, it has been informed by the deemed PIO that information regarding marks is treated as personal information of the candidate concerned, the disclosure of which is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the Act read with section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 by virtue of which section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act stands amended.
However, in case the applicant is the candidate concerned, he may collect the information regarding his marks, by visiting the Information Section personally along with his valid photo identity proof on or before 25.11.2025. The applicant may contact the Deputy Registrar (Recruitment) on telephone nos. 011-27666667/011-27662021 (email [email protected]) in this regard.
Regarding waiting list, the Deputy Registrar (Recruitment) has informed that the waiting list gets exhausted after joining of the selected candidates. Therefore, the matter is being referred to Assistant Registrar (Estab. - Teaching)."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 17.12.2025, stating as under-
Page 2 of 7"On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that some disclosable information has already been provided to the appellant. However, the Deputy Registrar (Recruitment & Promotion) is required to look into the OA vis-à-vis the First Appeal and provide further disclosable information, if any, as requested in the OA, directly to the appellant under intimation to the Information Section within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order."
4. In compliance of FAA's order, Deputy Registrar furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.01.2026 stating as under -
1. For the post of Assistant Librarian, Cut-off marks for consideration zone for SC Category is 105.
2. Marks awarded to a candidate are personal to the candidate and therefore exempted from declaration in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, if the applicant is a candidate for the vacancy under reference, for information regarding marks obtained, the applicant is required to visit this section along with an ID Proof and Admit Card of the examination under reference to obtain such information in person.
3. Further, the waiting list gets exhausted after joining of the selected candidates. The joining of candidates as Assistant Librarian was dealt by the Establishment Teaching. Therefore, further information regarding this may be obtained from Establishment Teaching Branch."
5. Challenging the decision of the CPIO's, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Yashoda present in person. Respondent: Shri Ashwani kumar, Asst. Registrar along with Shri Somnath, Dy. Registrar present in person.
6. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
7. Appellant at the outset contested the alleged arbitrary action of Respondent Public Authority in not issuing appointment letter to the Appellant Page 3 of 7 for the subject post under reserved SC category ignoring the fact that five posts were vacant. It was also the allegation of the Appellant that complete requested information has been malafidely withheld by the CPIO to deprive her right to get the said appointment.
8. CPIO stated that reply along with relevant information has been provided to the Appellant initially and after receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, revised reply has also been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.04.2026. It was the request of the CPIO if a copy of the Roll No. is provided, then he will try to facilitate additional information including but not restricting to the marks secured by the Appellant in the subject interview and other related sought information. At the behest of the Commission, the Appellant provided a screenshot of her roll No. to the CPIO during the hearing proceedings.
9. Post hearing, the CPIO provided a revised reply to the Appellant with a copy marked to the CIC vide letter dated 30.04.2026 informing as under -
"Point No. 1 For the post of Assistant Librarian Cut-off marks for consideration zone: for SC Category was 105.
Point No. 2, 3 The admit card of the applicant have been received. Therefore, the marks obtained by the applicant in Written Examination and Interview are as under:
Name Yashoda Form No. CDR2031703 Roll No. UODAL 246 Written Examination 109 (out of 400) Interview 36.6 (out of 100) Point No. 4 The waiting list gets exhausted after joining of the selected candidates. The joining of candidates as Assistant Librarian was dealt by the Establishment Teaching. Therefore, further information regarding this may be obtained from Establishment Teaching Branch. Point No. 5 Information sought by the applicant is clarificatory in nature and therefore not covered by Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005. Point No. 6 As pe information received from Establishment Teaching Branch, at prese at vacant positioner the post of Assistant Librarian is: 02 (UR-61, SC-01)."
Decision:
Page 4 of 710. Heard the parties.
11. The Commission upon a perusal of materials placed on record and having a perusal at the contents of information furnished by the CPIO, the Commission finds no infirmity in the revised response of the CPIO dated 30.04.2026 (contents reproduced in para 9 above) as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Appellant has failed to substantiate the grounds for dissatisfaction vis-à-vis response of the Respondent.
12. It also came to the notice of the Commission in the hearing that the core issue raised by the Appellant is not as much as about seeking access to information per se rather it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding non-receipt of appointment letter for the post of Assistant Libarian.
13. From the standpoint of RTI Act, 2005 the replies of the CPIO furnished with the copy of relevant enclosures are in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005, merits of which cannot be called into question.
14. It is noteworthy that CPIO is supposed to provide only such information as is held in the office records and is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 and not the ones which are not held by the Public Authority and is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
15. As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Page 5 of 7 Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
16. The aforesaid rationale finds timbre in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
17. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
18. Having observed as above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter, at this juncture.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Page 6 of 7 (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date YASHODA Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)