The Central Information Commission has dismissed a second appeal filed by an RTI applicant who sought a decades-old Employment Exchange registration card and the documents that were submitted with it to the Labour Department in Puducherry. Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari delivered the order on 19 November 2025 after a hearing held two days earlier.
The case began when Seetharaman filed an RTI application on 29 January 2024 asking for a copy of Employment Exchange Registration Card No. 0149027 dated 16 October 2000. He also wanted the documents that had been handed over at the time of registration. The Labour Department eventually replied on 21 June 2024, explaining that the card was no longer available and that the supporting documents from more than twenty years ago could not be traced. The department also invoked section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, saying the information was personal in nature and belonged to a third party.
In a written submission, the Public Information Officer said the delay in sending the RTI reply and the First Appellate Authority’s order was due to their online RTI accounts being locked, which prevented them from responding earlier. The department added that the Employment Exchange registration had long lapsed because it was not renewed, and that registration cards are only issued once at the time of initial registration.
When the Commission asked about the nature of the information requested, the applicant initially claimed that the card belonged to him, but later said it related to someone else. He argued that he still had not received the information he wanted. The Labour Department told the Commission that it had already given a clear reply and that the applicant had filed several RTI applications and appeals on the same issue despite being informed that the records were unavailable. According to the department, this created unnecessary work and reflected a misuse of the RTI mechanism.
After reviewing both sides, the Commission held that the department’s reply was appropriate. It agreed that section 8(1)(j) applied because the applicant had not shown any connection to the person whose registration details he was seeking. The Commission relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, along with earlier rulings such as Canara Bank v. C. S. Shyam and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, which say that personal records, including employment and service-related details, are protected unless there is a clear public interest in disclosing them.
Since no such public interest was demonstrated and the records themselves were unavailable, the Commission said no relief could be given. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the Labour Department’s decision. The order also highlighted two common issues with RTI requests: very old records often cannot be retrieved, and repeated attempts to obtain personal information about a third party will not succeed without a valid reason.
Case Details : Seetharaman vs PIO, Labour Department-Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Puducherry – 605009
