CIC Slams Kendriya Vidyalayas for Withholding Recruitment Info, Orders Disclosure
The central information commission (CIC), in a decision last week, has ordered that all recruited official posts in Kendriya Vidyalaya organisations must come under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and be made public by the Kendriya Vidyalaya authorities; with this case particularly pertaining to the post of librarians.
 
RTI applicant Tejram Khobragade, in December 2023, filed an RTI application with the central public information officer (CPIO) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), seeking detailed information regarding the `Direct Recruitment-2022’ process for librarian posts at KVS. Mr Khobaragade sought certified copies under section 6 of the RTI Act, of original and normalised marks (scores adjusted in case of difficult questions) for the computer-based test (CBT). 
 
Mr Khobragade further demanded individual final scores of all candidates and urged in his application that this information be made publicly accessible on the official KVS website under the ‘Results’ section. 
 
However, the CPIO of KVS, in his reply of 12 December 2023, declined to provide the requested information, stating that “All the information/ documents and the final results of all the posts advertised by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan will be available after completion of the recruitment process.” The first appellate authority (FAA) too upheld the CPIO’s reply, which prompted Mr Khobragade to file a second appeal with the CIC.
 
During the hearing before the CIC, on 27 June 2025 (over a year after the second appeal was filed), Abhishek Kumar (assistant commissioner & CPIO) and Aditya Sharma (administrative officer) were physically present, while Mr Khobragade remained absent (which is not uncommon).
 
CPIO Kumar maintained that information can be shared only after the “completion of the recruitment process.”  
 
Central information commissioner Anandi Ramalingam observed that Mr Kumar had not mentioned any exemption clauses under Section 8 of the RTI Act, in his reply to Mr Khobragade, to justify the non-disclosure of such information. And that the results of some posts were already published, with the names of provisionally selected candidates made public. Referring to that, Mr Kumar confessed that an internal investigation is underway concerning alleged irregularities in the recruitment process and also complained that KVS has been receiving a large number of RTI applications related to the same recruitment drive, which relates to various other posts apart from that of the librarians. This, he argued, is putting a lot of pressure on him and the ongoing inquiry makes it difficult to provide information. 
 
The CIC was also surprised to note that Mr Kumar made a verbal reference to Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, though he had not mentioned that in his reply.
 
Commissioner Ramalingam observed that “final results of all posts advertised by KVS will be available after completion of the recruitment process” is not valid exemption under the RTI Act, particularly because the RTI applicant had limited his information to the post of librarian and not 'all posts' as broadly stated in the CPIO’s reply.
 
Ms Ramalingam referred to three Delhi High Court rulings which stated that: 
1) access to information under Section 3 of the RTI Act is the rule, and exemptions under Section 8 are exceptions. Denial of information must be reasonable and supported by concrete material; otherwise, provisions like section 8(1)(h) risk becoming a tool for avoiding transparency.
 
2) mere pendency of an investigation is not a valid reason to withhold information. Authorities must demonstrate how disclosure would 'impede' or 'hamper' the investigation;
 
3) public authorities cannot merely cite Section 8(1)(h) without discharging the burden of proof.
 
Commissioner Ramalingam ordered that the CPIO’s arguments were rejected as they lacked legal validity. She directed CPIO Kumar to furnish the required information, within a fortnight as exemptions cannot override the citizens’ right to information.
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
Comments
Delhi High Court Gives Union Govt 3 Months To Frame Rules To Provide RTI Info on Email, Pen Drives
Bhavini Srivastava (Bar  and  Bench) 02 July 2025
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday gave the Central government three months' time to frame rules for providing information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) in electronic form (Aditya Chauhan & Anr vs Union of India &...
SBI Foundation, CSR Arm of SBI, Refuses To Share Audit Report, Claims Not Bound by RTI
Moneylife Digital Team 01 July 2025
The SBI Foundation, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) arm of State Bank of India (SBI) has refused to provide key information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, claiming that it is not a 'public authority' as...
Aadhaar Maze: Grievances Ignored, RTI Blocked and Errors Still Unfixed
Vinita Deshmukh, 26 June 2025
Amidst rising concerns over data accuracy in innumerable Aadhaar cards, that has caught even school and college children in a Catch-22 crisis if their cards used for identification do not match during admission in their educational...
Denied 20% Pension Boost, 80-year-old Files RTI—CIC Says It’s a Query, Not a Right to Information
Vinita Deshmukh, 19 June 2025
It is, indeed, laudable that 80-year-old Kumar Ambwani invoked the Right to Information (RTI) Act at the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare, New Delhi, to overcome his confusion over which exact date his 20% additional...
Array
Free Helpline
Feedback