The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that denied an RTI request seeking details about the educational qualifications and experience certificates of individuals appointed to public posts.

The Court held that such information cannot be classified as “private” and is subject to disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Justice Vivek Agarwal, delivering the judgment in Dr. Jayshree Dubey v. The Central Information Commissioner and Others (W.P. No. 39771 of 2024), noted that the CIC’s decision contradicted its own earlier rulings and amounted to an attempt to suppress information. “The stand of the CIC appears to be an attempt for non-disclosure of information and to shield unscrupulous and ineligible persons,” the Court observed.

The petitioner had sought details related to appointments made by the Indian Institute of Forest Management in 2020 for the posts of Associate Professor and Professor. It was alleged that one of the appointees, Dr. Prakeek Maheshwari, lacked the requisite qualifications, and his appointment had been admitted to be illegal.

The CIC had rejected the RTI application citing Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, stating the information pertained to “third parties” and was personal in nature. However, the High Court disagreed, holding that when the information concerns public appointments and there is an allegation of illegality, disclosure is in public interest.

Referring to previous CIC rulings and the proviso to Section 11(1), the Court held that educational and professional qualifications of selected candidates, as well as file notings, are not exempt from disclosure. The Court emphasized that public interest in ensuring eligibility of appointees outweighs any potential harm from disclosure.

“In cases involving public appointments, especially when illegality is admitted, disclosure of qualifications and experience falls squarely within the public domain,” the Court stated. It further held that the information sought, including file notings, must be provided within 15 days, free of cost. The Court also imposed litigation costs of ₹25,000 on the respondents.

The petitioner had also relied on the CIC decision in Pratap Dabar v. PIO, Department of Post, where the Commission had observed that public interest justifies disclosure of eligibility-related information of appointed candidates.