In an order to achieve transparency and improve public confidence in recruitment processes, the Central Information Commission has ordered the National Green Court to provide selected caste candidates in a recruitment.
The case arises from a request presented under the Law of Information Law of 2005, by V. Murugesh of Tamil Nadu that seeks to know if the system was followed in the recruitment notified in 2023 and asking for caste certificates of the candidates who had described. etc., while confirming that the reserve rule was followed, the NGT refused to share caste certificates of the selected candidates who said it was third -party information.
When approved the orders in the case, the information commissioner, Vinod Kumar Tiwari, set aside the decision of NGT’s claim exemption under section 8 (1) (J) of the Law. He said that the dissemination of said information would dissipate persistent doubts about irregularities in the public recruitment process. In the present case, share the requested information, not only justified but necessary to ensure that intelligible candidates were not selected instead of eligible.
Promote transparency
By pointing out that the requested information referred to public recruitment, he said that the maximum dissemination to promote transparency and responsibility in the organization of respondents was necessary. Moreoover, the denial of the caste certificates of selected candidates under section 8 (1) (J) was not sustainable when the recruitment was carried out in the reserved category.
“The very purpose of the reserve -based selection requires the verification and dissemination of chaste -based eligibility, which in this context becomes a matter of public registration. However, confidential personal data such as addresses or signatures can be edited,” said Tiwari in his order.
The CIC was based on the Judgment of the Superior Court of Bombay in the Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs. Pio, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Este Case in which it is stated that the qualifications obtained by the candidates in a selection process could not be heroes as “personal information” and fronty said information or not cause of privacy.
When a recruitment process with public advertising began that invites on requests of eligible candidates, the dissemination of brands obeyed by candidates who participate in said process would be equivalent to personal information, dissemination or interest. “Since such selection processes must be transparent and above the Board, it would be of public interest to disseminate such information instead of retaining it and allowing any questions about the process (however, such unjustified doubts can,” the court ruled.
Published – April 17, 2025 01:03 am ist