Information on action taken on appellant’s application pertaining to compassionate appointment was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - Respondent: LIC has a right to defend itself in the case filed by the appellant in the High Court - CIC: denial of information upheld

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Anurag Awasthi, submitted RTI application dated 09.07.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), LIC of India, Mumbai seeking information on action taken on his application dated 23.09.2011 pertaining to compassionate appointment after the death of his father Late P.C. Awasthi, along with relevant orders in this regard.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.08.2013 denied the information u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act stating that since the appellant moved to High Court in a writ petition, the information could not be provided till the outcome of the writ petition. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 12.08.2013 before the FAA, The FAA vide order dated 30.09.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

3. Thereafter the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had applied vide his application dated 10.7.2011 for appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father Shri P.C. Awasthi, but his case was rejected by the respondents. The information sought through RTI application was also denied by the respondents. The respondents stated that as per rules the compassionate appointments are considered by the Competent Authority (Senior Divisional manager of the Division where the compassionate appointment is sought). The maximum age upto which compassionate appointment can be considered by the competent authority is 30 years, if the applicant is the son or unmarried daughter of the deceased employee. Shri Anurag Awasthi was aged 32 years and 1 month as on the date of the application. He was over aged by 2 years and 1 month. The case was referred by the Sr. Divisional Manger, Kanpur to the Competent Authority at the Central Office for consideration of relaxation of age limit, which was rejected by the competent authority. The appellant sought certified copy of complete file in respect of his compassionate appointment including departmental letters, orders, notes, departmental enquiry report etc. The file notings, orders etc. sought by the appellant pertain to the decision taken by the competent authority at Central Office, whereby age relaxation was not granted to the appellant in his case on compassionate appointment. Since the above information was not available with LIC of India, Kanpur, the same could not be made available to the appellant. The respondents further added that the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, the same is pending for adjudication. Since the matter is subjudice before the High Court, no further information can be provided to the appellant till the outcome of the case, as the appellant is a litigant in the case as the respondents public authority has a right to defend itself.

5. The Commission vide its Full Bench decision dated 27.07.2009 in the matter of Shri Milap Choraria Vs. CBDT [case No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00025] held that “the respondents have persuasively argued that under Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the Act, there are compelling grounds for them to hold confidential information relating to how they wished to defend their legal position in litigation or a threatened litigation. Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wishes to defend itself is also quite convincing. The appellant has failed to cite any public interest that would commend superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested information within the meaning of Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act. The appeal petition, therefore, fails scrutiny and is dismissed.” Since the appellant had filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in this regard, the Commission in view of its aforementioned Full Bench decision, the information sought for by the appellant could not be provided till the outcome of the writ petition. No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Anurag Awasthi v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000159