The Appellant Was Present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai on Behalf of the Respondents, the Following Were Present in Person
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002088 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19) Date of hearing : 9th December 2016 Date of decision : 9th December 2016 Name of the Appellant : SHRI SAJAL KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY C/O. BISWANATH CHATTERJEE, ROOM NO- 334, SEKSARIA CHAWL, GOVIND NAGAR, MALAD -EAST, MUMBAI- 400097 Name of the Public : CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, Authority/Respondent AGRICULTURAL SCIENTIST RECRUITMENT BOARD KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN-I, PUSA, NEW DELHI- 110012 RTI Application filed on : 02/06/2015 CPIO replied on : 19/06/2015 First Appeal filed on : 12/07/2015 First Appellate Authority order on : 17/08/2015 2nd Appeal received on : 14/09/2015 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:- 1. Shri Ajay Gautam, Under Secretary and CPIO. 2. Ms. Rita Ghosal, Section Officer. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Information sought This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on five points regarding appointment of Dr. Prashant Kumar Gulabrao Patil to the post of Head, Division of Transfer of Technology (CIRCOT, Mumbai). File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002088 The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information stating that the Appellant was not an applicant for the said post. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply. Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Grounds of the Second Appeal Information sought not provided. Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision The Appellant alleged that Dr. Prasant Kumar Gulabrao Patil, information about whose appointment was sought, was appointed in an irregular manner because he did not have the educational qualification required for the post. He sought the information in the above context. He submitted that disclosure of the information is in larger public interest in the interest of transparency in the matter of such appointments. He also cited the Commission’s order No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000509/3167 dated 11.5.2009 in favour of his request for information. 2. The Respondents reiterated the replies already given to the Appellant. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. At point No. (i), the Appellant has sought certified copy/copies of the forwarding letter and the certificate of verification by the employer of Shri Patil, as submitted with his application. In our view, this information cannot be denied. However, before providing it, it would be necessary to exclude / blot out from it any information of a personal nature File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002088 concerning Shri Patil, such as his address and date of birth etc. as well as the assessment of the employer, forwarding his application, regarding his work. Therefore, the CPIO should provide the information on point No. (i) after excluding / blotting out the information of a personal nature mentioned above. At point No. (ii), the Appellant has sought information regarding the academic qualifications, employment record and experience in the relevant field, submitted by Dr. Patil in his application. In this context, we note the following observations of the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 8.11.2013 in UPSC vs. Pinki Ganeriwal [W.P.(C) No. 5812/2010]:- “In the present case, the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates. There is no finding by the Commission that it was in larger public interest to disclose the aforesaid personal information of the recommended candidates. Even in his application seeking information, the respondent did not claim that any larger public interest was involved in disclosing the aforesaid information. In the absence of such a claim in the application and a finding to this effect by the Commission, no direction for disclosure of the aforesaid personal information could have been given.” The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought at point No. (ii). His allegation regarding the qualification of the appointed candidate not being in keeping with the prescribed qualification cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest. At points No. (iii), (iv) and (v), the information sought is regarding the preliminary screening report on the application, the score card report of the selection committee and the certified copy of minutes of the selection committee. It is noted that the above information would contain a good deal of information of a personal nature concerning the third party- Dr. Patil, such as assessment on his performance etc. Therefore, the information sought at points (iii), (iv) and (v) cannot be disclosed in its entirety. However, the information, if any, available on records regarding the ranking given to Dr. Patil in the selection process and the marks awarded to him by the selection committee should be provided by the File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002088 CPIO in the light of the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 21.12.2015 in UPSC vs. Chandan Kumar [W.P. (C) No. 8845/2014]:- “The CIC vide order dated 11th January, 2013 has not directed the CPIO of the petitioner UPSC to disclose the information submitted by any of the applicants to the examination to the UPSC. What the CIC by the said order has directed is disclosure of the consolidated Reserve List of candidates by severing therefrom the marks awarded to those candidates who had not been recommended. The said list is not information submitted by any of the candidates to the petitioner UPSC but a list prepared by the petitionerUPSC itself on the basis of the result of the examination/selection process held by it. The said information in my view would not fall in any of the exceptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.” 4. The CPIO should comply with our above directives to provide some information to the Appellant, within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of charge. 5. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of. 6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/- (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002088 .