Name, State, community, marks obtained by the candidates in Hindi Teachers Training Programme ‘Parangat’ - CIC: PIO erred in allowing inspection; Marks are exempt u/s 8(1)(j); Different officers of the same organization cannot take different stand
24 Feb, 2021The name, State, community, marks obtained by the candidates who were selected for the admission during 2018 in Hindi Teachers Training Programme ‘Parangat’ was sought - CIC: PIO erred in allowing the appellant to visit the office for inspecting the documents related to the marks obtained by the candidates; The marks cannot be given in the form of documents being exempt u/s 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. 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. ; Different stands cannot be taken by different officers of the same organization
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the name, State, community, marks obtained by the candidates who were selected for the admission during 2018 in Hindi Teachers Training Programme – ‘Parangat’.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite duly served notice on 23.09.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED488258067IN. The CPIO reiterated her recent written submissions dated 01.10.2020 and also affirmed that the order of the Commission shall be duly complied with.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the applicant had sought personal information of third parties and the same is not disclosable. It was also noted that initially vide letter dated 18.09.2018 of the CPIO and the FAA’s order dated 14.12.2018 the information sought was denied u/s 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. 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. However, the present CPIO vide written submissions dated 01.10.2020 released certain information, which contained the list of candidates, with category and the name of the State from which they belong. She further submitted that the marks obtained cannot be given but the candidate can visit the office and inspect the records relating to marks.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that vide the recent written submissions dated 01.10.2020, the CPIO agreed to provide maximum information to the appellant. However, the CPIO erred in allowing the appellant to visit the office for inspecting the documents related to the marks obtained by the candidates. The marks cannot be given in the form of documents and hence, inspection also cannot be allowed being exempted u/s 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. 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. Further, this information should have been given at the appropriate time as different stands cannot be taken by different officers of the same organization.
The CPIO is directed to send a revised reply as discussed during the hearing to the appellant within 3 days from the date of issue of this order ensuring that personal information of third parties, which stand exempted under the provisions of the RTI Act are not disclosed to the appellant
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dhirendra Kumar Panda v. Central Institute of Hindi in File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/103985, Date of Decision : 06/10/2020