Examination record of third party – 36 lakh candidates appeared for this examination - allegation of impersonation regarding a particular candidate – information is personal and exempt under section 8(1)(j)
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 19.03.2012 seeking information about certified copy of examination record of a certain person.
2. The PIO responded on 26.03.2012 and denied information to the appellant 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 filed a first appeal on 15.04.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 21.05.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 19.07.2012 with the Commission.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant stated that his RTI application is focused on a matter where a currently working employee of the bank had got another person to appear in the examination on his behalf. The appellant stated that he wants the following information:
(a) did the candidate himself appear in the examination or was there any other candidate who appeared on his behalf;
(b) information about the investigation done about a thumb impression which was not of that of the candidate himself;
(c) is there any difference between the thumb impression of the bank employee and the thumb impression taken at the time of examination; and
(d) verified copy of the thumb impression taken in the examination center.
5. The respondent stated as follows on the points above of the RTI application:
(a) this is not information as per the RTI Act;
(b) this is not information as per the RTI Act;
(c) under the RTI Act, it is not possible to carry out this investigation and then submit an investigation report;
(d) no such investigation has been carried out; and this is not covered under the RTI Act.
6. The respondent further stated that 36 lakh candidates appeared for this examination and that there are sufficient systems to ensure fairness in the conduct of examinations. The respondent stated that investigations are not the function of the RTI Act.
7. The first appellate authority has upheld the decision of the CPIO, which is in conformity with the RTI Act. However, if there is any available information with the respondent pertaining to the RTI application in context of the conclusion reached in any investigation as indicated, that information should be made available to the appellant.
8. The respondent is directed to provide, within 30 days, any available information as per para 7 above.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Ram Chandra Meena v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000951/03941