Information regarding the names & addresses of those recruited & the Departments in which they were appointed was sought alleging irregularities in appointment - CIC: unsubstantiated allegations cannot become the ground of larger public interest

Facts

This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 16.2.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points regarding appointments made through an appointment process in 2012-13. The CPIO responded on 21.2.2013 and 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. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant filed second appeal dated 6.6.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 13.6.2013.

2. We heard the submissions of the representative of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The representative of the Appellant alleged irregularities in the appointment process and stated that the Appellant had sought the information in the above context. We note that at point No. 1 of the RTI application, the Appellant had sought information regarding the names and addresses of those recruited and the Departments in which they were appointed. We further note that the address of the appointed persons is their personal information covered by 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. However, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant a list containing the names of those appointed, along with the name of the department in which each person was appointed, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

3. At point No. 2, the Appellant had sought information regarding the grading/marks obtained by all the candidates appointed from amongst those in the temporary/emergency category. In this context, we note that while a candidate can get information regarding the marks obtained by him in a recruitment process, the information concerning the marks obtained by other candidates is their personal information, covered by 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.

4. At point No. 3, the Appellant had sought information regarding the appointed persons, who have or have had relatives/blood relations serving in the bank. The Respondents submitted that the form filled up by the candidates does not have any column on this subject and they have no information with them in this regard.

5. On being asked to make a submission regarding any larger public interest, warranting disclosure of the information covered by Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, the representative of the Appellant repeated his allegations regarding irregularities in the appointment process. He alleged that many persons appointed by the bank are related to those who have worked or are working in the bank. In the above context, we note that such unsubstantiated allegations of the representative of the Appellant cannot become the ground of larger public interest, warranting disclosure of the information covered by Section 8(1) (j). In case the Appellant has any specific information regarding appointment of relatives of bank employees, he is at liberty to raise the matter in an appropriate forum. The Respondents informed us during the hearing that the Appellant has filed a petition in the High Court challenging the entire appointment process.

6. With the direction in paragraph 2 and the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Kalidas v. Central Bank of India in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002213/SH