Central Information Commission
Deepak Kapoor vs National Law University, Delhi on 9 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NLUDL/A/2024/112017
Deepak Kapoor .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
National Law University,
Delhi, Sector-14, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110078 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.10.2025
Date of Decision : 08.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.02.2024
PIO replied on : 17.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 01.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.04.2024
Compliance of FAA's order : 06.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 08.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"The Reply to the information sought vide application is not appropriate and information has not been provided. Therefore the applicant once again request that proper information may please be provided in reference to the 1st Appel under the RTI act, 2005:Page 1 of 10
1. a copy of the duly certified result for the post of Deputy Registrar as advertised by the NLU Delhi (with last date of submission as 05.08.2023) may please be provided. Copy of the final result, like Minutes of Selection Committee, etc. not provided by the PIO. The University is violating the RTI Act by not declaring the result on the website. The applicant within his rights as a Candidates of the Recruitment Process fully eligible to get the information. The RTI prescribes for giving no reasons to get information.
2. a copy of selection criteria for the post of Deputy Registrar may please be provided. Provided by the PIO.
3. a copy of marks-wise list of candidates (only selected for interview) for the post of Deputy Registrar may please be provided. written test marks and interview marks. Incomplete information provided. Interview marks list may please be shared.
4. a copy of weightage given to written test and interview for the cost of Deputy Registrar may please be provided. Information not provided by the PIO. FAA to please provide the information.
5. a copy of wait list cand-dates for the post of Deputy Registrar mas please be provided. Information can be provided as per Shri Malla Krislitta Rao JIPMER Puducherry in F. No CIC YA/A/2015/001954 and many other decisions. The Supreme Court has also held that this information falls under Section 4 (i.e. Mandatory Disclosure). The University is violating the RTI Act by not declaring the result on the website. Thea applicant being one of the Candidates is not a third party."
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2024 stating as under:
"1. Information is attached as Annexure-I.
2. Information is attached as Annexure-II.
3. The marks of selected candidates for interview were displayed on the University Website for public domain. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I.
4. Information is attached as Annexure-III.
5. It is third party information."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.04.2024, held as under.
"1. By this order I propose to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant Mr. Deepak Kapoor against the order of PIO to his application under the RTI Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").Page 2 of 10
2. The PIO concerned is hereby ordered to provide the available information to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
3. The appellant be informed of the order passed."
4. In compliance of FAA's order, the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 06.04.2024 to the appellant as under:
"Subject: FAA ORDER dated 04.04.2024 with reference to RTI Appeal NLAWU/A/2024/60003 of Mr. Deepak Kapoor dated 01.03.2024.
In pursuance of the above mentioned order of the FAA NLU Delhi, please find below herewith the requisite information pertaining to National Law University Delhi:
1. The information available in public domain on the University website.
2. Information has already been provided to the candidate.
3. The written test marks obtained by all the applicants for the post of Deputy Registrar was displayed on the University website. Copy enclosed as Annexure-I. The written test was only for shortlisting candidates for interview. The final selection was done on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per rules. The applicant was not recommended by the Selection Committee.
4. Please refer point no. 02 above.
5. The information sought by the applicant is third party."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Virender Singh Negi, Assistant Registrar/PIO along with Shri Aditya Sachdeva, Advocate present in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 18.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
7. A written submission dated 29.09.2025 filed by the Respondent (copy served to the Appellant by email) is taken on record.
Page 3 of 108. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of their written submission, relevant contents of which are reproduced below for ready reference:
"l. 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, 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 endeavored 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. Deepak Kapoor, is a resident of 17/86-87, Second Floor, Near Gogia Sweets, Geeta Colony, Delhi -110031, who had applied as a candidate in the recruitment process conducted by the National Law University, Delhi for the post of Deputy Registrar. The Appellant participated in the written examination, but despite having appeared in the said examination, he did not get selected and was not recommended for appointment by the duly constituted Selection Committee of the University.
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. Deepak Kapoor, arising out of his Right to Information application dated 08.02.2024, concerning the recruitment to the post of Deputy Registrar. At the very outset, it is respectfully submitted that 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 1 into a forum for questioning the outcome of a duly conducted recruitment process, which is beyond the permissible scope of the Act.
BRIEF FACTS
4. That the National Law University, Delhi, in furtherance of its statutory obligations and in order to fill up the vacant post of Deputy Registrar, issued a public advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates; with the last date of submission being 05.08.2023. The process was duly notified and conducted in a transparent manner, ensuring equal opportunity to all aspirants.Page 4 of 10
5. That It is further submitted that, in continuation of the said advertisement, a written examination was conducted by the University on 25.11.2023. This examination was conducted in accordance with the notified procedure and under due supervision, thereby maintaining the sanctity of the selection process.
6. That It is pertinent to submit that, upon scrutiny of applications, 61 candidates were found to be eligible for participation in the recruitment process and admit cards were accordingly issued to them. Out of these, 42 candidates appeared for the written examination on the scheduled date. The said figure has been placed on record in the notification issued by the University.
7. That the written examination was never intended to be the final basis of selection. The same was conducted purely for the purpose of shortlisting suitable candidates for the interview stage. As per the procedure expressly notified in advance, the final selection for the post of Deputy Registrar was to be determined solely on the basis of the interview conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee of the University, in accordance with the governing rules
8.That the Appellant, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, was one of the candidates who appeared in the written examination conducted on 25.11.2023 for the post of Deputy Registrar. The Appellant secured 62 marks in the said examination and was accordingly included in the list of shortlisted candidates invited for the interview stage.
9. That the interview was held on 08.01.2024 before the duly constituted Selection Committee of the University. The Appellant, despite having been called for interview, did not find a place in the final recommendations of the Selection Committee.
10.That the recommendations of the Selection Committee were accepted by the competent authority of the University, and the final result of the recruitment process was declared and uploaded on the official website of the University in accordance with the procedure. That being dissatisfied with his non-selection, the Appellant thereafter sought to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by filing an application dated 08.02.2024 seeking disclosure of documents relating to the recruitment process, including the certified final result, minutes of the Selection Committee, candidate-wise marks, weightage, and wait-list.Page 5 of 10
11.That being dissatisfied with his non-selection, the Appellant submitted an application dated 08.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, registered as NLA WU/R/2024/60003, seeking disclosure of several items of information in respect of the recruitment to the post of Deputy Registrar. In the said application, the Appellant specifically sought:
(i) a duly certified copy of the final result for the post of Deputy Registrar as advertised by the University, including minutes of the Selection Committee and related records;
(ii) a copy of the selection criteria adopted for the said recruitment;
(iii) a candidate-wise list of marks of those selected for interview, including both written test marks and interview marks;
(iv) details of the weightage, if any, given to the written test and interview in the recruitment process; and
(v) a copy of the wait list of candidates, if prepared, for the post of Deputy Registrar. A copy of the RTI application dated 08.02.2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C-1.
12.That the Public Information Officer of the University, acting within the statutory period, furnished a detailed reply on 17.02.2024. In the said reply, the Appellant was provided with the information available on record, including the notified selection criteria as well as the marks obtained by candidates in the written test. It was further clarified that the written test was conducted solely for the purpose of shortlisting candidates, and that the final selection was made on the basis of the recommendations of the duly constituted Selection Committee. In accordance with the settled legal position, the disclosure of interview marks was declined as the same formed part of the confidential deliberative process, and the request for a wait list was denied on the ground that it amounted to third-party information exempt under the Right to Information Act, 2005. A copy of the reply to the RTI application submitted by the University is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C-2.
13.That the Appellant, being dissatisfied despite the timely and reasoned reply, submitted a First Appeal on 01.03.2024 before the First Appellate Authority of the University. In the said appeal, he reiterated his earlier demands and alleged that the response furnished by the Public Information Officer was incomplete. In particular, the Appellant contended that a certified copy of the final result along with the minutes of the Selection Committee had Page 6 of 10 not been supplied to him, that candidate-wise interview marks were not disclosed, that no clarification was given on the alleged weightage between written test and interview, and that the request for a copy of any wait list of candidates had been denied. On this basis, he sought directions from the First Appellate Authority for supply of the said information. A copy of the First Appeal dated 01.03.2024 before the First Appellate Authority is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C-3.
14.That the First Appellate Authority, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 04.04.2024 directing the Public Information Officer to provide once again such information as was available on record, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The said order was duly complied with by the University. A copy of the order dated 04.04.2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C-4.
15.That in faithful compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 04.04.2024, the University, through its Public Information Officer, furnished a further reply on 06.04.2024. In this communication, the Appellant was once again informed about the fact that the final result of the recruitment process had already been declared and duly uploaded on the official website of the University, thereby making it available in the public domain for the benefit of all concerned. The Appellant was also informed that the written test marks obtained by all the applicants had been displayed on the website and, for his convenience, a copy of the same was enclosed with the reply. A copy of the communication dated 06.04.2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C S.
16.That the Appellant was further informed that the written test was conducted solely for the limited purpose of shortlisting candidates for interview, and that the final selection had been made strictly on the basis of the recommendations of the duly constituted Selection Committee, in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure. It was categorically clarified that there was no system of weightage between written test and interview, as the interview stage alone formed the basis of final selection.
17.That as regards the other items sought by the Appellant, it was reiterated that the disclosure of candidate-wise interview marks and minutes of the Selection Committee was not permissible under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in view of the statutory exemptions contained in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j), being information held in fiduciary capacity and involving the personal information of third parties. Similarly, the request for a copy of the wait list Page 7 of 10 was declined on the ground that it pertains to the personal information of non-selected candidates, the disclosure of which would amount to an unwarranted invasion of their privacy and is therefore exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
18.That despite the due compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority and despite the fact that all information permissible under the Right to Information Act, 2005 had already been either proactively disclosed on the official website of the University or directly supplied to him, the Appellant has nevertheless chosen to institute the present Second Appeal dated 08.04.2024. The said appeal, premised on unfounded allegations of non-disclosure and delay, is nothing but an arbitrary and unwarranted attempt to misuse the process of the Right to Information Act in order to indirectly question the outcome of a recruitment process in which the Appellant did not succeed. A copy of the Second Appeal is annexed herewith ANNEXURE C-6. PARA-WISE REPLY
19.That the contents of Para 1 are denied to the extent they allege that the Public Information Officer has not provided appropriate information. It is submitted that the reply dated 17.02.2024 furnished the selection criteria and the written test marks of all candidates. The Appellant's allegation that certified copies of minutes and final results were withheld is misconceived, as the final result was duly uploaded on the official website of the University, accessible to all, and minutes of the Selection Committee are deliberative records protected under Section 8(1)( e) of the Act.
20.That the contents of Para 2 are denied. It is reiterated that the selection criteria were already provided to the Appellant. His demand for interview marks of all shortlisted candidates is not tenable, as such information is personal to third parties and is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Appellant has already been informed of his own performance and the fact of his non-selection, which satisfies the requirement of transparency.
21.That the averments made in this Para 3 are denied to the extent they allege that incomplete information was furnished. The written test marks of all candidates shortlisted for interview were already published on the official website of the University and a copy thereof was annexed with the reply of the Public Information Officer. However, the disclosure of candidate-wise interview marks is not permissible under Section 8(1)(J) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the same constitutes personal information of third Page 8 of 10 parties and forms part of the confidential evaluation by the Selection Committee. The Appellant has already been informed of his own marks in the written test and of the fact of his non-selection, and therefore the allegation of denial is unfounded.
22.That the contents of this Para 4 are misconceived. The Appellant contends that disclosure of weightage cannot be understood without candidate-wise interview marks. It is submitted that the recruitment notification itself clarified that the written test was held only for the purpose of shortlisting and that final selection rested entirely on interview. There is, therefore, no system of "weightage" between written test and interview, and the demand raised is unfounded.
23.That the contents of Para 5 are denied. The Appellant's request for a copy of the wait list was rightly declined, as disclosure of the names and marks of non-selected candidates would constitute third-party personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. No official wait list has been published by the University. The allegation that the University has violated Section 4 of the Act is baseless. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with his non- selection, is attempting to use the Right to Information Act as a means to challenge the recruitment process, which is outside the scope of this Act.
6 PRAYER In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon 'ble Commission may be pleased to:
A. Dismiss the present Second Appeal as being misconceived, untenable, and an abuse of the process of the Right to Information Act, 2005; B. Decline the Appellant's request for disclosure of interview marks, minutes of the Selection Committee, and details of any wait list, as the same are exempted under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)U) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; and C. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent summed up his arguments by stating that all permissible information barring the interview marks of the selected candidates has already been provided to the Appellant. He further apprised the Bench that interview for the subject post was held on 08.01.2024 and the result was finalized on 12.03.2024 that is much after the RTI application was disposed by the CPIO.Page 9 of 10
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records observes that as far as RTI application is concerned adequate reply in terms of the provision of the RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent earlier and now vide written submission dated 29.09.2025 which is comprehensive and self-explanatory and is thus, upheld. A copy of the said written submission has already been provided by the Respondent to the Appellant which is taken on record.
11. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office at the relevant time and hence, he is neither expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant nor is under obligation to provide successive and progressive status in response to RTI application after furnishing comprehensive initial reply. The Appellant is at liberty to file fresh RTI application for obtaining any further information.
12. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
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 National Law University, Delhi, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)