A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

An unsuccessful candidate sought information related to Mr Sanjay Kumar who was selected for the post of 'Accounts Officer’ - CIC: Details of selected candidates contains elements of personal information of third party which cannot be divulged u/s 8(1)(j)

19 Jun, 2023

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2021 seeking the following information:

“Please provide the below information related to Mr. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Karan Singh, selected for the post of 'Accounts Officer against ADVT N0- N/HR&/H/2020/31:-

1. List of documents attached by the Candidate in online application filled & also provide copies for the same.

2. List of pending documents at the time of filling 'Online Application' by the candidate.

3. List of documents subsequently provided by the candidate after the 'Closing date of online application' for awarding of marks & also provide copies for the same.

4. Break-up and basis of Score Card Marks i.e. 28.82 awarded to candidate in Evaluation sheet uploaded on NIFTEM website dated 09.04.2021.

5. Break-up and basis of Score Card Marks i.e. 48.82 awarded to candidate in Evaluation sheet uploaded on NIFTEM website dated 23.07.2021.

6. Marks obtained by all three candidates in Written Test held on 06.08.2021, in the panel of merit i.e. Sanjay Kumar (NT201952), Shailesh Kumar Sharma (NT201408) and Amit Kumar (NT200962).”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.09.2021 stating as under:

“Information exempted under clause 8 (I) (e) (g) & (j) of RTI Act 2005. For reference details have been made available on the website: www.niftem.ac.in/career.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2021. FAA’s order, dated 19.01.2022 furnished a revised point wise reply to the Appellant stating as under -

“Point No 1, 2 & 3: Information sought is exempted under Clause 8 (1) (i) of RTI Act, 2005.

Point No 4: Marks were awarded by the screening committee based on the documents uploaded by the candidate till the last date of submission of application.

Point No 5: Marks were awarded by the screening committee based on assessment of representation given by the candidate after uploading of the first evaluation sheet on the website after taking due approval by the Competent Authority.

Point No 6: Detailed result was uploaded on the NIFTEM website on dated 11.08.2021.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Dy. Controller (F & A) and CPIO present through video-conference.

The Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that he was one of the candidates who had applied for the averred post. However, his name was not considered by the Respondent organization for which he filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He further stated that in order to corroborate evidence in support of his case he urged for the averred information; however, he is aggrieved with the alleged refusal of information by the CPIO under RTI Act and also contested for their inaction in not responding to the court notices as well.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of the averred reply.

Decision:

The Commission upon a scrutiny of records observes that details of selected candidates as sought by the Appellant contains the elements of personal information of third party which cannot be divulged in view of 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. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of 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 as under:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,

xxxx (j) 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;..”

In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & 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…”

Nonetheless, a point wise reply provided by the CPIO inviting attention of the Appellant towards the specific hyperlink from where the permissible information can be accessed, is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.

In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Amit Kumar v. National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, CIC/MOFPI/A/2022/113829; 02.05.2023

An unsuccessful candidate sought information related to Mr Sanjay Kumar who was selected for the post of 'Accounts Officer’ - CIC: Details of selected candidates contains elements of personal information of third party which cannot be divulged u/s 8(1)(j)

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.