Appellant sought copy of ST certificate of particular officer, on the basis of an assumption that it might be fake - He could not convince the CIC about the basis of his suspicion about the ST certificate - CIC admonished him for misuse of RTI
1. Appellant sought information in relation to Mrs Omeshwar Singh viz. copy of her SC certificate, educational qualification certificate, qualification acquired after recruitment, who issued her SC certificate and State from which it was issued.
2. CPIO replied that SC certificate not enclosed to her service book and copy of educational certificate can be provided after making requisite payment
Ground for First Appeal: 3. Unsatisfied with the CPIO reply
First Appellate Authority Order:
4. FAA denied to provide the information by claiming exemption of section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Act.
Ground For Second Appeal :
5. Unsatisfied with the FAA order
Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. Both the parties made their submissions. The Commission observes that the appellant is seeking copy of ST certificate of particular officer, on the basis of an assumption that it might be fake. The Public Authority has already replied to the appellant that the Service Book of Mrs. Omeshwar Singh does not contain her ST certificate. When the Commission queried the appellant whether the appellant is having any basis to his suspicion about the ST certificate and about his interest in seeking these details, the appellant could not convince the Commission.
7. The Commission also observes that the appellant Mr. Rishipal Singh Tomar has been heard earlier by this Commission in several appeals. In its order No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000405 dated 17122014 this Commission observed as under:
“The Commission also notices that the appellant is misusing the RTI to settle his personal scores against the school and the teachers. RTI is not a rendezvous for chargesheeted, penalised and irresponsible teachers. The Commission directs the respondent authority to prepare a comprehensive note regarding the abuse of RTI by this appellant and add this order to that note and upload the same in their official website, so that any further RTI application from this appellant shall be referred to the information uploaded on the website and disposed of. If any further harassment is done by the appellant, the school authorities or the teachers can approach the legal consultants to initiate proper civil/criminal proceedings against him.”
8. The appellant is a cantankerous misuser of RTI, does not deserve any sympathy or information, as there no public interest. The appellant is wrecking vengeance against the authority and officers for taking stern action against his misconduct. He is hereby admonished for misuse of RTI. The Public Authority can reject his RTI applications about inquiry and inquiry officers as that would impede the entire process of inquiry.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
Citation: Rishipal Singh Tomar v. Directorate of Education in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001474