The Central Information Commission has ruled that marks obtained by candidates in public recruitment processes cannot be withheld as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development to disclose the appellant’s marks and those of selected candidates, affirming that transparency in public employment is a fundamental public interest.
The Verdict
The Appellant won. The Central Information Commission held that marks obtained by candidates in public recruitment processes are not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as their release serves the public interest in transparency and accountability. The Commission directed the CPIO to disclose the appellant’s marks, the marks of selected candidates, and the recruitment advertisement within four weeks, and mandated proactive publication of recruitment details under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Background & Facts
The Appellant, Rimpi, filed an RTI application on 1 April 2024 seeking information regarding a public recruitment drive for Assistant Professor posts at the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development (RGNIYD). The request included seven specific items: selection criteria, list of selected candidates with CVs and marks, names and joining dates of appointed candidates, her own marks, and documentation on implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The CPIO responded on 30 April 2024, stating that selection criteria were in the advertisement, that CVs and marks were exempt under Section 11(1) (third-party information), and that no data existed on PwD reservations. The Appellant filed a First Appeal on 6 May 2024, challenging the response as incomplete and misleading. The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s reply, citing confidentiality and third-party rights.
The Appellant then filed a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission. During the hearing on 20 January 2026, the Respondent conceded that the advertisement could be provided and claimed ignorance about whether marks were recorded. The Commission noted that the recruitment was conducted under Advertisement No. RGNIYD/Esst./Teaching/2023-24/001, issued on 31 May 2023, and that the Appellant had participated in the process.
The Legal Issue
Can marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process be withheld under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as personal information, or does public interest in transparency override such claims of confidentiality?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the CPIO’s refusal to disclose her own marks and those of selected candidates was arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. She argued that since the recruitment was conducted through a public advertisement, the selection process was inherently public, and disclosure of marks was necessary to ensure fairness, prevent arbitrariness, and enable scrutiny of merit-based outcomes. She relied on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, which held that such information cannot be classified as personal information with no public interest.
For the Respondent
The Respondent argued that marks and CVs constituted personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and that disclosure could lead to unwarranted invasion of privacy. The CPIO claimed ignorance about whether marks were recorded and asserted that selection committee deliberations were confidential to protect members from harassment. The FAA had previously upheld this position, citing the third-party nature of the information and lack of clarity on the time period for which vacancy data was sought.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission rejected the Respondent’s reliance on Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11(1), emphasizing that the RTI Act does not categorically exempt all personal information. It held that the key test under Section 8(1)(j) is whether disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. In this case, the recruitment was a public function initiated by a public authority through a public advertisement, making the selection process inherently subject to public scrutiny.
"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."
The Commission explicitly adopted the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, which held that withholding marks fosters suspicion and undermines public confidence. It further noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No. 2783/2025, had affirmed this view, stating that disclosure of marks is necessary in public interest and cannot be denied under the RTI Act.
The Commission also clarified that the Appellant’s own marks cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, as the right to access one’s own information is absolute under the RTI Act. The CPIO’s claim of ignorance regarding record-keeping was deemed unacceptable, as public authorities are obligated to maintain records of recruitment processes.
The Commission further invoked Section 4 of the RTI Act, directing the Respondent to proactively publish all stages of the recruitment process - including category-wise merit lists, sequence of filling vacancies, and details of PwD reservations - on its official website to reduce the need for future RTI applications.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This decision establishes a binding precedent for all public authorities conducting recruitment through open advertisements. Practitioners can now confidently assert that marks, interview scores, and selection criteria in public employment processes are not exempt under Section 8(1)(j) if the process is transparent and merit-based. The ruling reinforces that transparency is not an exception but the norm in public recruitment.
Future RTI applicants may now routinely seek and obtain marks of successful candidates, enabling challenges to arbitrary or biased selections. Public authorities must now ensure that recruitment records are systematically maintained and proactively published under Section 4. Failure to do so may invite adverse orders under Section 20 for non-compliance. The decision also limits the scope of Section 11(1) claims in recruitment contexts, as third-party interests are outweighed by the public interest in accountability.
Distinguishing factors include cases involving security-sensitive posts or confidential examinations (e.g., UPSC, SSC with national-level security protocols), where courts may still consider limited redaction. However, for state-level, university, or institutional recruitment, this ruling is broadly applicable.
