Documents about recruitment of Data Entry Operators was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: In the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions and in the absence of the larger public interest, no scope of intervention in the matter

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1.      खाद्य विभाग सतना में पदस्थ डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर — रघुवीर सिंह राठौर, रमाकांत पटेल, विजय कुशवाहा, प्रभात सोनी, अर्चना तिवारी, युवराज प्रताप सिंह, पवन कुमार, शुभम सोनी, अभिषेक श्रीवास्तव — की नियुक्ति के दौरान संलग्न सभी दस्तावेजों की सत्यापित छायाप्रति।

2.      डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर भर्ती की नियमावली की सत्यापित छायाप्रति।

3.      डाटा एंट्री ऑपरेटर भर्ती के दौरान टाइपिंग टेस्ट की सत्यापित छायाप्रति।

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2024.

3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Information on point-numbers (1) and (3) is declined 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. 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 being personal in nature in regard to the persons about whom information is sought. Reference is invited to Supreme Court verdict dated 31.08.2017 (Civil Appeal number 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of 2009) in the matter "Canara Bank versus CS Shyam" wherein Hon'ble court observed as under:

....transfers of staff with regard to individual employees is in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc are personal details of employees exempted under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.

Reference is further invited to verdict dated 13.11.2019 (Civil Appeal number 2683, 10044 & 10045 of 2010) by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter "Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal" wherein the Apex Court observed as under:

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, all are 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.

44. In line with the aforesaid discussion, we need to note that following non-exhaustive considerations needs to be considered while assessing the 'public interest' under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

a. Nature and content of the information

b. Consequences of non-disclosure; dangers and benefits to public

c. Type of confidential obligation.

d. Beliefs of the confidant; reasonable suspicion

e. Party to whom information is disclosed

f. Manner in which information acquired

g. Public and private interests

h. Freedom of expression and proportionality.

However, a copy of rules for appointment of Data Entry Operators as sought in point-number (2) of RTI application is enclosed herewith”

4. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

5. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.05.2024.

6. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Chandra Shekhar, RTI Officer, attended the hearing through video conference and Mr. Subhash Agarwal RTI Consultant, attended the hearing in-person.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to the third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. A written submission dated 21.04.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 23.04.2024. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information 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. 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, 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. 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 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; 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…”

9. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Subhash Pandey v. IFCI Limited (IFCI), CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/618678; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025