List showing marks obtained by each candidate against Educational Qualifications, Appraisal Report Ratings, Seniority, interview and total marks for the Senior DPC conducted by the MMTC were denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld19 May, 2021
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the list showing marks obtained by each candidate against Educational Qualifications, Appraisal Report Ratings, Seniority, interview and total marks for the Senior DPC conducted by the MMTC Management for promotion of Additional General Manager to the post of General Manager on 24th & 25th September, 2018.
2. Provide a copy of the approved office note for the cut off year for eligibility for considering the promotion and the years considered for taking the ARR ratings of each candidate for promotion to the post of General Manager.
3. Provide the copy of the adopted criteria for making the seniority list and for deciding the Regional in-charge.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the information regarding the DPC minutes and the marks scored by other candidates was not provided to him. He contested the marks awarded to him. He pressed for the bifurcation of marks.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply and written submissions dated 22.03.2021.
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable reply was provided to the appellant on 04.01.2019 by virtue of which the information which was related to the appellant was supplied to him and the rest of the information was rightly denied u/s 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. Further, the CPIO in his written submissions dated 22.03.2021 had addressed every point raised by the appellant in his second appeal memo. The Commission also observed that the appellant is basically nursing a grievance relating to seniority and as per the CPIO the appellant was given promotion also and now he is General Manager. He is disputing his seniority vis-a-vis other officers. This is not an issue that can be resolved under the RTI Act.
Hence, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Marri Prasad v. MMTC Ltd. in File No.: - CIC/MMTCL/A/2019/112348, Date of Decision: 01/04/2021