Central Information Commission
Dr K Susheela vs National Institute Of Plant Health ... on 12 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NIPHM/A/2022/603349
Dr.K. Susheela ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Plant Health Management,
Department of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, RTI Cell, Rajendra Nagar,
Hyderabad-500030,Telangana. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/04/2023
Date of Decision : 10/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 20/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 18/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 17/12/2021
2nd Appeal dated : 17/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Provide copy of the criteria or guidelines adopted by selection committee for selection of AD-PD position.1
2. Provide marks secured by selected candidate and Dr. K. Susheela in written exam, power point presentation and interview separately including any other weightage marks for selection of AD PD post
3. Provide the copy of question paper and corrected answer sheets of written exam of selected candidate and Dr. K. Susheela, conducted for selection of AD-PD position
4. Provide recordings of the interview and power point presentation delivered by selected candidate and Dr. K. Susheela during selection procedure for AD-PD position
5. Provide Key paper of the written exam conducted for selection of AD-PD position
6. Provide Certified copies of selection committee recommendations/proceedings for selection of AD-PD position
7. Provide Details of selection committee members appointed for selection of AD- PD position
8. Provide Profile/Bio data of the selected candidate submitted during submission of application and with additional updated information if any
9. Provide Note sheet copies for approval of selection criteria for the selection of AD-PD position
10. Provide criteria considered during the scrutiny of the applications and filtering the candidates for written exam, PPT and interview for selection of AD-PD position
11. Provide the purpose of collecting the information in formats check list I, II, III before attending written exam, PPT and interview Request for the information on other Assistant Director (AD) positions at NIPHM
1. Provide the selection criteria and guidelines adapted by NIPHM in filling up of all Assistant Director positions (AD-PD, AD-PS, AD-RPM, AD-PHM, AD-Horti & Flori, AD- ICT, AD-PM&RA, ADPFA) year wise and post wise since 2008, separately."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 20.10.2021 stating as under -
Sl.No. Reply
1 The copy of guidelines adopted by Selection Committee is as follows:-
S.No. Component Weightage/Maximum Marks
In figures In words
1 Written Test 50 Fifty
2 PPT 25 Twenty Fie
3 Interview 25 Twenty five
100 One Hundred
2
2 Marks secures by you in written test 44.17, PPT 22.67 & Interview 22.33 and the
marks secured by the selected candidate in written test 46.67, PPT 22.33 & Interview 21.67.
3 NIPHM relies on limited external subject experts while undue advantage to some and would harm the competitive position of a third party i.e. the other applicants as per the provision of Section 8(1)(d). Accordingly the request for copy of question paper is rejected under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. The corrected answer sheet of the applicant may be verified at the Registrar office, NIPHM on any working day from 03:00 PM to 04:30 PM after prior intimation at least two (02) days before.
4 There is no such practice of video recording of interview & PPT. 5 The written exam paper is a technical one and the evaluation was done by subject matter specialist from reputed institute. There is no key paper. 6 This information pertain to core areas of functioning of this committee and disclosure of the same does not serve any public interest or activity and rather disclosure of the same would harm the protected interest of this institute. Further, these records are kept in the nature of confidential and cannot be shared under Section 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. 7 The external subject matter specialists were nominated from the reputed institutes. The desired information relates to personal details of 3rd party individuals, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest as well as it leads to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the members. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8 The desired information relates to personal details of 3rd party individuals, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest as well as it leads to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the applicants. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 9 The same may be verified at the Registrar office, NIPHM on any working day from 03:00 PM to 04:30 PM after prior intimation at least two (02) days before. 10 Please refer to the NIPHM Advertisement no. 05/2019. 11 The information sought does not fall under "information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
12 The photocopies of selection criteria and guidelines adopted by NIPHM for filling up of Assistant Director position will be provided on payment of Rs. 36/- (@ Rs. 2/- each).
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2021. FAA's order 17.12.2021 furnished a revised point wise reply to the Appellant.
3Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by her husband N. Mohan Krishna present through video- conference.
Respondent: Pruthi Reddy, Registrar & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant placed reliance on their latest written submission dated 10.04.2023 wherein the Appellant mainly challenges the selection procedure of the Respondent organization for selection of AD-PD candidates which in fact , is the sole genesis of instant RTI Application. He further narrated the grievance of the Appellant regarding non-consideration of her name for the said post despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
In response to Rep. of Appellant's contentions, the CPIO also invited attention of the bench towards her written submission filed prior to hearing and submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant at the first instance, then by FAA and also upon receipt of hearing notice a revised point wise reply has been supplied to the Appellant now by covering each and every point of contention raised in the instant Appeal barring the copy of answer sheet, copy of bio data of other candidates and selection committee minutes.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged non-consideration of her name for the post of AD-PD and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct 4 deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, her attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the 5 respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, it is also not out of the place to note that the details of entire records of other candidates applied/selected for the averred post contains the elements of their personal information which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) 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 6 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) 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, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing to assist the Appellant is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Now, considering the insistence of Rep. of Appellant and as a matter of limited relief, the CPIO is directed to provide an extract of selection committee recommendations/proceedings for selection of AD-PD position against point no. 7 where the name of Appellant can be figured out after masking the names and identifying particulars of the other third party officers, if any, which may figure in the noting /comments/ report/minutes and cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI 7 Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties, as the said provision states as under:
"...10. Severability.--
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information...."
The information as directed above shall be provided, free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8