Attested copies of all documents enclosed in dossier of Dr. Chitra Desai Professor in Computer Science at NDA Khadakwasla were sought - Dr. Desai was unwilling to share the documents - CIC upheld the decision of the PIO to deny information u/s 8(1)(j)
29 May, 2016Information sought:
This is regarding the appointment of Dr. Chitra Desai, Professor in the Dept. Of Computer Science NDA Khadakwasla Pune. While recommending the candidate, UPSC send all the documents enclosed in dossier and request the concern department to verify the authenticity of all documents submitted by the candidates before issuance of offer appointment. In this regard Appellant wants the following information under RTI Act 2005:
1. Attested copies of all documents enclosed in dossier of Dr. Chitra Desai Professor in Computer SC NDA Pune.
2. Attested copies of all verification report submitted by the concern department to NDA Pune.
3. Attested copies of all documents and their respective verification report as per the dossier of the Dr. Chitra Desai.
4. Policy letters, guidelines, any documents or any procedure based on which the HQIDS New Delhi/NDA Pune verify the authenticity of all documents enclosed in dossier of the candidate.
5. Policy letter, guidelines, any documents or any procedure base on which the HQIDS New Delhi/NDA Pune verify the authenticity of the 400 API score points.
6. Attested copy the NDA letter No.1200/CD/I/EDN dated 09 Sep 2014 forwarded to HQIDS New Delhi.
7. Attested copy of letter No. 15880/Prof/Comp Sc/CD/NDA/IDS/Pers dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Sep2014 forwarded by HQ IDS to NDA Pune.
8. Attested copy of all Noting sheet, correspondence, Memo, official communication, with Mod/HQIDS/ UPSC New Delhi and other universities and department regarding recruitment, appointment and verification of the authenticity of all documents submitted by the candidate on aforesaid matter.
9. Attested copies all documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form on aforesaid matter on concerned with recruitment related with the post of Professor as stated above.
Grounds for Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent : N. Elangovan, CPIO, NDA Khadakwasla present through VC. Appellant mentioned that CPIO has denied him certain information ( Sl. No. 15) claiming exemption under 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 RTI Act. He brought to the notice FAA’s order in which it was stated that the dossiers of Dr. Chitra Desai for which the CPIO had claimed exemption was not available in the NDA. CPIO submitted that the dossiers of Dr. Chitra Desai was very much available with him. He mentioned that Dr. Desai was unwilling to share the documents pertaining to the post of professor under the RTI application. In this back drop he claimed exemption under 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. .
Decision :
Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Govind N Sarage v. NDA National Defence Academy in File No.CIC/CC/A/2014/003139/DP