The Central Information Committee in an order to achieve transparency and strengthening public confidence in recruitment trials has ordered the Green Tribunal National Court to provide caste certificates of candidates selected in recruitment.
The case arises from a petition filed under the 2005 Information Act by V. Mugesh of Tamil Nadu, who is trying to know whether the reservation system was observed during recruitment announced in 2023 and called for a caste for candidates who qualified in this process. etc., in confirmation that the reservation rule was observed, NGT refused to share caste certificates of selected candidates and stated that it is third party information.
Passing orders if the Commissioner of Information Vinod Kumar Tiwari annulled the NGT decision, which requires an exception pursuant to Section 8 (1) (a). J) of the law. He said that the publication of such information would distract the persistent doubt of the opposition in the public recruitment process. In the present case, the sharing of the required information was not only justified, but necessary to ensure that unparalleled candidates were not selected on the site of the eligible.
Support transparency
He stated that the found information concerned the public recruitment, stated that maximum publication was necessary to support transparency and liability in the opponent’s organization. In addition, the rejection of the caste certificate of selected candidates pursuant to Section 8 (1) (a). J) It was not sustainable when recruiting was carried out in the reserved category.
“The very purpose of choosing a reservation based on a mandate for verification and publication of competence based on a caste that becomes a public record in this context. However, sensitive personal data such as addresses or signatures may be edited,” Mr. Tiwari said.
CIC relied on the judgment of the High Court in Mumbai in Onkar Datattaray Kalmankar vs. PIO, registrar, district and meeting court, PUNE and other cases stated that the signs of the acquired candidates in the selection procedure could not be detained as “personal data” and the provision of this information would also not cause an unjustified invasion of the individual’s privacy.
If the recruitment process began with public advertising that called on applications from eligible candidates, the publication of the brands acquired by candidates participating in such a process would mean personal data whose publication had no relation to any public activity or interest. “Given that such selection processes must be transparent and above the Board of Directors, it would be in the public interest to publish this information rather than detention and allow any doubts about the process (although they may be unauthorized),” the court ruled.
Published – April 17, 2025 01:03
