CIC: The Complainant furnished the name, date of birth, roll number etc. of the averred individual and has desired that the PIO should rewrite the same details in the format - CIC: It is a rather unreasonable request for information; Exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
The Complainant filed an RTI application on 22.03.2019 seeking information as follows:-
Stenographer grade C and D (2016)
Name Deepika Bajaj
Husband Jitendra Bajaj
Roll No 2201001183
The applicant sought the details of the marks obtained by his wife and other information…….
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 03.04.2019 stating as follows:-
“…………..requisite information is personal information of the Candidate. The Admission certificate issued by the Commission is to be retained by the candidate and the NC contains all the details as mentioned in the RTI application. It is also stated that the RTI application is to be filed by the applicant herself. Hence as such information cannot be provide. Marks of the candidate is available on the website of the Commission i.e. ssc.nic.in. He/ She can see from the website of the Commission.”
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: H.L. Prasad, Under Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information and prayed that the certified copy of the result of the averred individual may be ordered to be provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that the Complainant was duly informed that the information sought for pertains to the personal information of a third party and moreover, the said individual could have very well accessed her result from their website at the relevant time.
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the Complainant has sought for such information which he is already furnishing in the subject matter of the RTI Application in terms of the name, date of birth, roll number etc. of the averred individual and yet has desired that the CPIO should rewrite the same details in the tabular format preferred therein. The same appears to be a rather unreasonable request for information except for where the date and details of examination and result has been sought for by the Complainant.
However, no scope of relief is pertinent in the matter as concededly disclosure of the marks obtained by the third party or a certified copy of the result thereof will be hit by the exemption of 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. In this regard, attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment dated 06.08.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Gaurhari Kamila wherein the following was held in the context of disclosure of marks of other candidates:
"By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgement, we hold that the CIC committed a serious illegality by directing the Commission to disclose the information sought by the respondent at point no. 4 and 5 and the High Court committed an error by approving his order.
We may add that neither the CIC nor the High Court came to the conclusion that disclosure of the information relating to other candidates was necessary in larger public interest. Therefore, the present case is not covered by the exception carved out in Section 8 (1)(e) of the Act."
Having observed as above, it is pertinent to note that no larger pubic interest is evinced in the disclosure of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application, moreover, no such argument was tendered by the Complainant.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Jitendra Bajaj v. Staff Selection Commission in File No : CIC/SSCOM/C/2019/144089, Date of Decision : 02/06/2021