Information regarding the recruitment to the post of Assistants in RBI - PIO: subject wise marks obtained by all the candidates is not maintained in the format as desired by the appellant and is third party information - CIC: denial upheld

Facts:

1. The appellant, Ms. Shashi Yadav, has submitted the RTI application dated 18 July, 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding the recruitment to the post of Assistants in RBI.

2. Vide reply dated 23 August 2012, the CPIO replied that the written examination, interview marks and cutoff marks will be available on the bank website after declaration of the final result. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 30 August, 2012 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 01 October 2012, the FAA directed the CPIO that in case the information sought is not available on the Bank website it may be furnished to the appellant. He also directed the CPIO to furnish the subjectwise as well as aggregate marks obtained by the appellant in the written examination. 3. Even after the order of the FAA, the CPIO has denied the information by stating that it is not available with them in a compiled form and compiling would disproportionately divert the recourses in term of section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant has filed another RTI application dated 01 November 2012 in context of same subject through a total of 4 points. The CPIO vide letter dated 29 November 2012 denied to provide the information in terms of section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. & 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, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 27 December 2012 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). No order has been passed by the FAA with respect to the second RTI application.

3. Not satisfied by the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Ms. Shashi Yadav was not present at the hearing and respondents, Ms. Jonaki Sain, CPIO/Deputy Legal Advisor and Ms. Shakti Dubey made submissions from Mumbai.

5. The CPIO submitted that the information sought w.r.t. marks (subject wise) obtained by all the candidates for the recruitment examination conducted for the post of Assistants may not be provided as the same is not maintained in the format as desired by the appellant and also stands as third party information. The appellant, however, has been informed that her marks (subject wise i.e., Test of reasoning, Test of English, General Awareness, Numerical ability and Computer) can be accessed by her on the public authority’s website along with the cutoff marks (aggregate) categorywise and the list of roll numbers of the successful candidates (centre wise) for the recruitment examination. The CPIO further submitted that information sought regarding the educational qualification of all the candidates may not be provided as the same stands as third party information. Moreover, all the candidates appearing for the recruitment examination, hold basic qualification required to appear for the said examination.

Decision Notice

6. The Commission upholds the CPIO’s order as the information w.r.t appellant has been provided and the rest of the information pertains to third party candidates and may not be disclosed. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. The case is closed.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Shashi Yadav v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000405/MP