Central Information Commission
Nikhil Kumar Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 30 July, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2017/176219-BJ
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Asst. Secretary
Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE)
Regional Office, Ambika Complex,
State Bank Colony, Brahmsthan,
Sheikhpura, Raja Bazar, Bailey Road,
Patna- 800014 (Bihar)
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.07.2018
Date of Decision : 30.07.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 10.07.2017
CPIO's response 17/28.07.2017
Date of filing the First appeal 24.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 28.08.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application had sought information regarding letter no. CBSE/RO/PTN/RTI/894/2016/193545 dated 10.08.2016 as per which CBSE had sought explanation from the six schools, details of action taken on this letter, comments received, decision taken, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 17/28.07.2017, refused to disclose the information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 28.08.2017, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh in person;Page 1 of 4
Respondent: Mr. Rajib Barua, Asst. Secretary/PIO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that information sought by him was wrongly denied by the Respondent citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent however maintained its stance and referred to the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000971-SA dated 05.08.2016 and CIC/SA/A/2016/01355 dated 09.12.2016. During the hearing, it was alleged by the Respondent that the Appellant was misusing the RTI mechanism for his vested interest which was detrimental to the Educational Institutions. The RTI applications filed by the Appellant against the CBSE and School reflected private vengeance without any larger public interest. He cautioned against its misuse of RTI mechanism and consequential harassment to the CBSE Officials. Contesting the allegations of the Respondent, the Appellant denied filing repeated RTI applications and emphasized that the issues raised by him were of larger public interest only. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.07.2018, wherein it was stated that the Appellant vide his application had not only sought a list of examiners but also their qualification, etc. which could not be provided since it not only related to a third party but also due to the reason that it may endanger their physical safety. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., in Para 28 had directed that even while granting certified copies, identity of examiners, etc were to be removed/ covered or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer books u/s 10 of the RTI Act. It was further stated that the Appellant was in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications with large number of them being frivolous and that he had filed about 51 RTI application upto 2016 and the Board supplied all the information to him. A reference was made to the decision of the Commission in CIC/RM/A/2014/000971-SA dated 05.08.2016, wherein several observations were made against misuse of the Act by the Appellant. In the aforesaid matter, it was also stated that severe strictures were passed against the Appellant by the High Court of Patna in CWP No. 10205 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012. Furthermore, the Respondent also referred to the decision of the Commission in CIC/SA/A/2016/01355 dated 09.12.2016.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of Page 2 of 4 India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497 in the context of claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005, held as under:
"53. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/co-ordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co- ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Those portions of the answer books which contain information regarding the examiners/co- ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer books, under Section 10 of the RTI Act."
The aforesaid decision was relied in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9052 OF 2012 dated 13.12.2012 wherein it was held as under:
Page 3 of 4"30. The above reasoning of the Bench squarely applies to the present case as well. The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the Interview Board to harm and, on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose. Furthermore, the view of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that element of bias can be traced and would be crystallized only if the names and addresses of the examiners/interviewers are furnished is without any substance. The element of bias can hardly be co-related with the disclosure of the names and addresses of the interviewers. Bias is not a ground which can be considered for or against a party making an application to which exemption under Section 8 is pleaded as a defence. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. Suffice it to note that the reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity with the principles stated by this Court in the CBSE case (supra). The transparency that is expected to be maintained in such process would not take within its ambit the disclosure of the information called for under query No.1 of the application. Transparency in such cases is relatable to the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking. Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of aforesaid decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter..
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 30.07.2018
Page 4 of 4