Appellant maintained that incomplete and misleading information has been provided - CIC: PIO to affirm on affidavit that relevant records as sought for by the Appellant has been provided to him and no other document on the subject is available in records
10 Jun, 2019Information Sought:
The Appellant vide his RTI application has sought following information:-
- Details regarding current staff position who are still working in KVK Chanpura (Basaitha) Madhubani along with approval of the Council (Selection Committee) including name, fathers name, post, salary, copy of Appointment Letter, duration of work and permanent/ present addresses as has been mentioned in the Bio-data of the above mentioned employees.
- Information regarding the persons including name, fathers name, post, salary, copy of Appointment Letter, duration of work and permanent/ present addresses who were appointed in KVK Chanpura, Madhubani against the Advertisement EN -25/33 as published in Employment News on 19-25 September 2009 along with report of the Selection Committee and name of members of said Committee.
- And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent as he wanted information from the year 1992 till the date of filing of the instant RTI application. He further submitted that incomplete information has been provided to him.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided to Appellant vide reply dated 24.06.2017 and most of the records sought by the Appellant are not available with them for various reasons as explained in their reply. He further submitted that some of the information sought for is personal in nature and thus 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. of the RTI Act. He relied on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs CIC & Ors(SLP No 27734 of 2012), wherein following observation has been made:
“The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest.”
Observation:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it was noted by the Commission that an appropriate reply has been provided to Appellant vide letter dated 24.06.2017. Commission upholds the submission of respondent.
However, Appellant is still maintaining that incomplete and misleading information has been provided to him. The Respondent is directed to submit an affidavit with regard to the information provided and that which is not available with them.
Decision:
Commission directs CPIO to affirm on affidavit to the Commission that relevant records as sought for by the Appellant in his RTI application has been provided to him as per records available with them and no other document on the subject is available in their records, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the Appellant within the same number of working days. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. Om Veer Singh Rana v. PIO, SK Chaudhary Educational Trust Krishi Vigyan Kendra in Decision no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2017/144556/00016, Date of Decision: 06/02/2019