Denial of information of the credentials, joining date and office orders regarding the selected candidates u/s 8(1)(j) upheld - CIC: PIO failed to explain delay which shows the disdainful approach of Central University of Karnataka in dealing with the RTI
3 Oct, 2021Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 18.02.2019 seeking information about the recruitment process conducted for the post of Information scientist. In this regard, he sought the following information;
1. What criteria applied for selecting candidate for above said post?
2. Evaluation scheme including interview score of selected candidate.
3. Candidate joining date and copy of all valid documents submitted to university.
4. Copy of office order issued to a candidate after selection.
The CPIO provided an interim reply to the Appellant on 27.09.2019 informing him that his RTI Application has been forwarded to the concerned department and the final reply will be provided upon receipt of the same from the said department.
Having not received any material response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2019. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2019 disposed off the First Appeal with the remarks that “RTI Application has been forwarded to concerned department for reply. Once received the same will be sent to your postal address.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of desired information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Dr. Basavraj Kubakaddi, Assistant Professor (Department of Law) & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise final reply along with relevant inputs has been provided to the Appellant now vide letter dated 04.08.2021. Upon a query from the Commission regarding delay, the CPIO expressed his inability to provide any cogent explanation and submitted that he took over the charge of designated CPIO recently.
Upon a further query from the Commission, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of averred reply and did not contest the CPIO’s submission further.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon because the recent reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant on all points of RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
It is also pertinent to note that the CPIO has rightly denied the information of the credentials, joining date and office orders regarding the selected candidates as sought for at points nos. 3 and 4 of RTI Application 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. 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 RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged 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. 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive...”
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the fact that reply along with complete requisite information was not provided to the Appellant by the then CPIO, CUK within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act.
Also, the present CPIO has failed to substantiate any reasonable explanation for such delay during hearing which shows the disdainful approach of Respondent University in dealing with the RTI matter. The said omission of the then CPIO amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant’s right to information and is a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Now, therefore, the then CPIO (designated at the time of receipt of RTI Application) through the present CPIO is hereby directed to send his written submission in writing explaining the reasons for his prima facie failure to provide a final reply
coupled with relevant information in terms of the RTI Act.
The written submission of the then CPIO through the present CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present CPIO should serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO for proper compliance of above mentioned direction.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mithun Patil v. Central University of Karnataka in File No: CIC/CUVRK/A/2020/663347; Date of Decision: 06/08/2021