Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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 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):

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 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.
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 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.

69. 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:-