Central Information Commission
Mrdevender Kumar Singh vs Gnctd on 3 September, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001781SA
(Sh.Devender Kumar Vs. Rawal Pindi SDSS School)
Appellant : Sh.Devender Kumar Singh
Respondent : Rawal Pindi Sanathan Dharam
Senior Secondary School
Date of hearing : 25082014
Date of decision : 03092014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the RTI
Act
Result : Appeal allowed/
Disposed of
The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Devender Kumar
Narang, APIO/Principal and Mr. Atul Kumar, Head Clerk, Rawal Pindi Sanathan Dharam
Senior Secondary School, GNCTD Delhi.
FACTS
2. Through his RTI application dated 1272013, the appellant is seeking information about the vacant posts of Librarian and PGT (Commerce) - about the dates of interview for those posts, number of candidates called for the interview and people selected for the said posts, copy of the minutes of the interview process and other related information. The PIO has given reply by his letter dated 2272013. Not satisfied, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA who by the order dated 2482013 upheld the information furnished by the PIO and advised the appellant he can meet him if he is still not satisfied with the information. Claiming that the respondent authority has not furnished the information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
3. Heard the submissions made by the respondent authority. The appellant is not present. Respondent authority in their reply both at the level of RTI application and First Appeal have cited the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC (2013)1SCC(LS)150 for denying the information to the appellant.
4. It is clarified that in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with the case whereby the information sought was with respect to the personal matters pertaining to an employee of respondent authority involved in the case, where his service career and details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties was sought and which was denied on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1)of the RTI Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande had observed that:
"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
15. The Petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. "
The appellant in the present case has not sought for personal record of any particular employee, the information sought relates to interview process conducted which in no way cannot be termed as personal record of the public authority.
5. The Commission therefore directs the respondent authority to furnish the complete information to questions 1 to 4 and give latest status of the result with reference to question No.5 of the RTI application to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Rawal Pindi Sanatan Dharam Senior Secondary School (Recognised and aided by Delhi Govt.) Sabzi Mandi Malka Ganj Road NEW DELHI110007
2. Shri Devender Kumar Singh 1265, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi110093