Central Information Commission
Ankita vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 1 December, 2021
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/IIMAH/A/2021/620012
Ankita ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad, RTI Cell,
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/10/2021
Date of Decision : 26/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 19/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 19/03/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 19/04/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/05/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"1)Kindly provide the detailed admission procedure of ALL MBA (equivalent) programmes of your institute. Also provide the detailed application procedure for the same and the selection procedure adopted for these programme in the last 5 years. Also mention if there is a compulsion to fill a separate application for these programmes apart from the CAT 2020 form.
2)Kindly provide the application deadline and application procedure for ALL MBA (equivalent) programmes for the session commencing in 2021.
3)Kindly provide the proposed procedure for selection to ALL MBA (equivalent) programmes for the session commencing in 2021-22
4)Kindly provide the application deadline and application procedure for the PhD programmes of your institute for the session commencing from 2021.
5)Kindly provide the proposed procedure (along with weightage of each parameter) for selection to the PhD programmes for 2021.
6)For each student of MBA at your institute, kindly provide the following details, for the last 5 years. A)Name B)Grade obtained in each semester during the course C)Name & Package offered of the Company in which placement was obtained D)Specialization subject(s) E)Section wise & overall percentile obtained in CAT (during admission to college) F)Marks obtained in the Written Test & Interview/GD (during admission to college)
7)Provide the complete Placement details of the MBA pass-outs of the institution (all specializations) of last 7 passed out batches.
8)For each student of PhD at your institute, kindly provide the following details, for the last 5 years. A)Name B)Grade obtained in each semester during the course C)Specialization subject & Subject of Thesis D)Section wise & overall percentile obtained in CAT (during admission to college) E)Marks obtained in the Written Test & Personal Interview/GD (during admission to college) G) Educational Qualification/Academic record (during admission to college)
9)Provide cut-off CAT percentile (General Category) for shortlisting candidates for the Written Test & Interview/GD for admission to PhD programs of the institution (Specialization wise) for the last 5 years.
10)Provide marks obtained by each student in the Written Test/Interview/GD in the last 5 years who got selected & those in wait-list for PhD programs.2
11)Provide the Questions that appeared in the selection procedure(Written Test/Interview/GD) in the last 5 years for selection to PhD programs.
12)Provide the Grading pattern & Evaluation procedure prevalent for the MBA & PhD programmes.
13)Provide Overall & sectional percentile of the last candidate (each category) called for interview in 2021 for all MBA(equivalent) programmes.
14)Provide the composite score of last selected candidate in each category in all MBA & PhD programmes in the last 5 years and provide the components and weightage of various parameters to compute the composite score."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 19.03.2021 providing the information on some points while denying the information citing the admission policy of IIMA as well as Section 8(1)(j) on points 5,6-12 & 14 of the RTI Application.
Being dissatisfied with the denial of the information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2021. FAA's order dated 19.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for the audio conference and the notice of hearing came back undelivered with the remarks "Insufficient Address") Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Sharma, Assistant General Manager (Hindi) & CPIO along with Cdr. Manoj Bhatt (Retd.), Chief Administrative Officer & First Appellate Authority present through audio conference.
The Commission remarked upon a perusal of the facts on record that the reply of the CPIO provided to points 5,9,12 of the RTI Application is not appropriate as no exemption of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act has been claimed under the RTI Act to deny the information. It was also observed that the reply provided to point no.11 of the RTI Application denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was not appropriate.3
Upon a query from the Commission, Cdr. Manoj Bhatt (Retd.), Chief Administrative Officer & First Appellate Authority submitted that there is no definitive or documented information available in the form as sought for by the Appellant at point no.5 of the RTI Application as PhD is a different kind of programme entailing a 5 years residential programme. Similarly, the cut-off percentile for the available PGP MBA programme was agreed upon to be provided to the Appellant by Dr. Mukesh Sharma, Assistant General Manager (Hindi) & CPIO. As regards point no.12 of the RTI Application, Dr. Mukesh Sharma, Assistant General Manager Hindi & CPIO submitted that the evaluation process entirely depends upon the faculty, i.e whether they want to have a viva voce or not, so no particular structure is defined and they can at best provide the available grading pattern. He further agreed to provide a revised reply to point no.11 of the RTI Application as per availability of records.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and in furtherance of the hearing proceedings directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply to points no. 5, 9, 11 & 12 of the RTI Application incorporating the available and relevant information and categorically indicating the unavailability of information, wherever applicable. The information to be provided in compliance with this order shall be provided free of cost and the said directions should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is also advised to send a copy of the revised reply/information via email to the Appellant for ease of access.
As regards, points 6, 7, 8, 10 & 14 the Commission does not find any scope of intervention as the information sought for in these points pertains to third parties and stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of 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 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., 4 (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..."
The CPIO is lastly advised to ensure that the admission policy of the IIMA is not cited for denying the information sought for under the RTI Act in future.
With the above observations and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5