CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001595/SG/14559
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001595/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Moti Chand Prasad
MS Office, 2nd Floor
Sir Sunder Lal Hospital
Varanasi-221005(UP)
Respondent : Mr. T. B. Satyanarayan
PIO & General Manager
Reserve Bank of India,
RBI Services Board, RBI Building
3rd Floor, Opp. Mumbai Central Railway Station
Byculla-400008(Mumbai)
RTI application filed on : 10/01/2011
PIO replied on : 15/03/201, 27/01/2011
First Appeal filed on : 04/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : Not Mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 27/05/2011
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Total individual marks obtained by each ST candidates those who qualified in written test Information
held on 16-10-2005 for the recruitment of GRADE 'B' OFFICER in RBI. cannot be
2. Total individual marks obtained in written test(phase II) by each ST candidate those who furnished U/s
qualified in written test (phase I) held on 16-10-2005 for recruitment of GRADE 'B' 8(1)(j).
OFFICER in RBI.
3. Merit list of finally selected ST candidates for appointment those who qualified in written
test(phase II) & interview for the recruitment of GRADE 'B' OFFICER in RBI.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information not provided U/s 8(1)(j).
Order Of the First Appellate Authority:
Ordered CPIO to revisit the queries of the Appellant and furnish information about the successful
candidates.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information received regarding the queries.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Moti Chand Prasad on video conference from NIC-Varanasi Studio;
Respondent: Mr. T. B. Satyanarayan, PIO & General Manager on video conference from NIC-
Mumbai Studio;
The PIO states that information regarding query-1 is not available since it has been destroyed
as per the record retention schedule. The PIO has provided the marks of the successful candidates as
per the order of the FAA. But has not provided marks of the unsuccessful candidates claiming
exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission is not able to appreciate how marks
of successful candidates can be held not to be covered by exemption under Section 8(1)(j) whereas the
marks of unsuccessful candidates are considered to be exempted under Section 8(1)(j). The
Commission also rules that marks of candidates who appear for exams cannot be held to invasion on
the privacy of an individual as defined under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The information is
personal but is generated in the course of the public activity and the marks of the individual candidates
cannot be considered to be invasion on the privacy of an individual.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-2 regarding the marks
obtained by the unsuccessful candidates to the Appellant before 05 October 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
13 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (D J)