CIC: Information relating to educational qualification of candidates is in the nature of personal information about third party & cannot be brought into the public domain to which anybody could have access, unless sought for a larger public purpose
The appellant sought information regarding names of the boards from where the applications received for the appointment of BPM and name of the board from which applicants were selected, in respect of present running process of appointment and the previous process of appointment.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Ms. Mamta Shah through VC
Respondent: Mr. T S Gorai CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that she wants the name of the Board(s) which issued the matriculation certificate to the candidates selected as BPM in Dumka division during the year 2011-12. The CPIO’s representative stated that they have already intimated the appellant that the information relates to third party(s) and is exempted from disclosure 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 the RTI Act. The appellant pointed out that reply to the RTI application was given after a delay of six months. The CPIO’s representative explained that a large number of RTI applications had to be replied; however, as soon as a reminder was received the reply was given. The appellant pleaded that some compensation should be awarded for the harassment caused to her due to the delay in replying to the RTI application.
Information relating to educational qualification of candidates is in the nature of personal information about third party and cannot be brought into the public domain to which anybody could have access, unless the petitioner is able to establish that the information sought is for larger public purpose. The appellant has not received the RTI reply timely. For the detriment caused she deserves to be compensated, therefore in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act, we direct the department to compensate her by an amount of Rs.1000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to her. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Ms. Mamta Shah v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001872/8271