Central Information Commission
Sudhikumar Mohan Neel vs Department Of Posts on 1 December, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194
In the matter of:
Sudhikumar Mohan Neel ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Directorate, ACAO (Computer)
(LDCE AA0 - 2018),
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.10.2018 FA : 30.11.2018 SA : 27.12.2018
CPIO : 23.11.2018 FAO : 30.11.2018 Hearing : 26.11.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Sudhikumar Mohan Neel, heard through video conferencing.
Respondent: Shri Pradeep Mehlawat, ADG (Admin.), Department of Posts, New
Delhi, heard through audio conferencing.
Page 1 of 10
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an online RTI application on 24.10.2018 seeking information on six points, including;
1) Provide first page xerox copy of service book of all selected candidates from Sr. no 1 to Sr. no 949 in assistant accounts officer (AAO) LDCE -2018 exam result published dated 01/10/2018.
2) Provide name/designation/office of posting at the time of paper checking of all committee members which was formed for evaluation of paper I to paper VI for AAO LDCE -2018 exam answer sheets.
3) Provide all correspondence regarding eligibility criteria verification of all selected candidates before posting order of dated 01/10/2018 by PA Wing.
4) Provide all selected candidates attendance sheet copies from paper I to paper VI in AAO LDCE 2018 exam.
5) Provide all non-selected candidates marks list of all papers from paper I to paper VI.
6) Provide recruitment rule copy where roll no of candidate is necessary or not while declaring AAO LDCE 2018 exam result.
The CPIO, vide online reply dated 23.11.2018, stated on point nos. 1 to 4 and 6 that no such information is available with the CPIO, hence it cannot be supplied. With respect to point no. 5, the appellant was informed that arrangements are under process for communicating the marks. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first Page 2 of 10 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 appeal dated 30.11.2018. FAA, vide order dated 30.11.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that desired information has not been furnished to him till date. He further apprised the Commission that although he cleared the above noted exam, he was not selected by the respondent. However, certain candidates were selected even without them fulfilling the eligibility criteria and without the respondent verifying their documents. Therefore, he filed the instant RTI application seeking the above noted information.
The respondent relied on his written submissions and submitted that the appellant vide point no. 1 has sought copy of service book of all selected candidates. Since service book contains personal information of third parties, the same cannot be supplied to the appellant. Moreover, service book of 949 candidates is not available in the respondent's office and the same must be available with the offices of their posting. Identifying the place of posting of 949 candidates and requesting for their service book from every such office would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Furthermore, no larger public interest would be served from such disclosure. The respondent further submitted that disclosure of name/designation/office of posting of all committee members involved in evaluation of exam answer sheets, as sought vide point no. 2, would Page 3 of 10 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 reveal their identity and thus, endanger their life. Moreover, it is also plausible that the non-selected candidates might influence the committee members. With respect to information sought vide point no. 3, the respondent submitted that eligibility criteria has been clearly specified in the relevant advertisement which is available on their official website. He, however, agreed to furnish hard copy of the same to the appellant. As for point no. 4, the respondent submitted that attendance sheet contains signatures and other particulars of candidates and the same cannot be disclosed to the appellant as the same pertains to third party information. In response to a query regarding information sought vide point no. 5, the respondent submitted that marks list was not disclosed in public domain. However, each candidate was apprised with his marks via SMS. In its reply, the appellant submitted that the SMS did not specify the candidate's Roll no. to which the respondent stated that as per the decision of the Competent Authority, candidate's full name, his/her date of birth and father's name were considered to be sufficient information while disclosing marks. Accordingly, SMS's were sent to every candidate consisting of aforesaid information. He further agreed to furnish a copy of the said order after redacting the details of concerned officials.
The written submissions dated 12.11.2020 filed by the respondent were taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, refers to a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 it was held that:Page 4 of 10
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 "...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 confidential access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
A reference is further made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [Civil Appeal no. 9052 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) no.20217 of 2011] pertaining to the disclosure of names, designations and educational qualifications of interviewers:
"29. Now, the ancillary question that arises is as to the consequences that the interviewers or the members of the interview board would be exposed to in the event their names and addresses or individual marks given by them are directed to be disclosed. Firstly, the members of the Board are likely to be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will hamper effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners.
This is the information available with the examining body in confidence with Page 5 of 10 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 the interviewers. Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court. We see no error of jurisdiction or reasoning in this regard. But direction to furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act...."
"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 Page 6 of 10 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) held that:
"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
In light of the above noted judgements, the Commission endorses the submissions made by the respondent on point nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and observes that disclosure of such information does not involve any larger public interest.
With respect to the information sought vide point nos. 3 and 6, the Commission notes that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] had held as under:
Page 7 of 10CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 "11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) had observed as under:
"....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........"
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish hard copy of the relevant advertisement consisting of the eligibility criteria, as sought vide point no. 3 and a copy of their recruitment rules, as sought vide point no. 6, along with a copy of the order of Competent Authority regarding disclosure of marks via SMS, to the appellant, after severing all the names and other references which could reveal the identities of the public officials concerned, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Page 8 of 10CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194 With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 26.11.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Central Public Information Officer Directorate, ACAO (Computer) (LDCE AA0 - 2018), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 Page 9 of 10 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/174194
3. Mr. Sudhikumar Mohan Neel Page 10 of 10