In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Wp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 5875 of 2014 Geeta Kumari ...… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa 3. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Palamu Division, Daltonganj, Palamu. 4. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa. ...… Respondents -------- CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, Advocate ------ 7/23.6.2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 5.8.2014 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa, addressed to the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Meral, Garhwa, bearing Memo No. 1710 dated 05.8.2014, which was also communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 351 dated 09.8.2014 by the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Meral, Garhwa, asking the petitioner to produce the documents with respect to her appointment and educational qualifications, for giving the information which was sought for under the R.T.I. Act. The said letter has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ application. The letter contained in Annexure-3 shows that one Sabir Ansari had filed an application under the RTI Act for seeking information about the appointment and educational qualification of the petitioner, who was working as A.N.M in the Health Center, Meral. The said information could not be furnished to the person, who had sought for the information and accordingly, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa, by the impugned letter dated 05.8.2014 asked the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Meral, Garhwa to make available the information, as sought for under the RTI Act. The said letter was communicated to the petitioner by the In-charge Medical Officer, Meral Garhwa, asking her to make available the documents relating to her appointment and the educational qualification, as sought for. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the information, which is being sought for from the petitioner, could not be given, in view of the fact that they relate to the personal information of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is not under an obligation to disclose -2- these facts to any person. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly, prayed for quashing the letter contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, one being in Girish Ram Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Others, reported in 2013 (1) J.C.R, 231 (SC), and the other being, R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Another, reported in 2013 (4) J.C.R., 128 (SC). Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the personal information relating to the petitioner is being sought for by letter contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, it is a fit case for quashing the same. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the information sought for in the present case cannot be treated to be the personal information relating to the petitioner. Both the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, show that the information which were held, to be the personal information by the Apex Court, were relating to the disciplinary proceeding, punishment and the ACR records of the petitioners in those cases. As such these decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the present case, the information being sought for from the petitioner relates to her appointment to a Govt. job, and the educational qualification of the petitioner. In my considered view, these are not the personal information of a person who is appointed to a Govt. job and the people at large are entitled to have the information about the appointment of such person and the fact whether the person concerned is holding the required educational qualification for the same or not. As such the information, which are sought for from the petitioner, are not the personal information which could not be furnished under the RTI Act. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/.

Load more