Central Information Commission Orders aim to increase transparency in public recruitment

In an order to achieve transparency and strengthen public trust in the recruitment process, the Central Information Commission has directed the National Green Tribunal to provide caste certification for selected candidates in recruitment.

The case was filed by a petition filed by Tamil Nadu V. Murugesh under the Right to Information Act in 2005, trying to know whether the reservation system was followed in the hiring notified in 2023 and calling for caste certificates of qualified candidates in the process and obtained their mark. And while confirming that the retention rules are followed, NGT refused to share caste authentication of the selected candidate, saying that this is third-party information.

Through this case, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari put aside the decision of NGT to demand exemption under Section 8(1)(J) of the Act. He said the disclosure of such information would eliminate lingering suspicion of misconduct during the public recruitment process. In this case, sharing the requested information is not only reasonable, but it is necessary to ensure that the unqualified candidate is not selected in place of the qualified candidate.

Promote transparency

He noted that seeking information related to public recruitment, he said that maximum disclosure is necessary to promote transparency and accountability for respondent organizations. Furthermore, when recruiting under the reserved category, a caste certificate rejection under section 8(1)(J) is not sustainable.

Mr Tiwari said: “The purpose of booking-based selection is to require caste-based qualifications to be validated and disclosed, in which case this becomes a matter of public records. However, Mr Tiwari said under the order.

CIC relies on the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar vs. In other cases such as PIO, registrar, district and conference courts, Pune and other cases, it is stated that trademarks obtained by candidates during the selection process cannot be blocked because “personal information” and providing such information will not cause unlimited infringement of personal privacy.

If the recruitment process begins with a public advertisement for the Qualified Candidate Invitation Application, the trademark disclosure obtained by the candidates involved in the process will constitute personal information that has nothing to do with any public activity or interest. The court ruled: “Because such selection process must be transparent, the board of directors is higher than the board, so disclosure of such information rather than denying the process and allowing any persistence of any doubt about the process, regardless of the unreasonableness of such questions.”