Central Information Commission
Dr Mamta Rani vs Central University Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: -CIC/CUORJ/A/2018/636517/03156
File no.: - CIC/CUORJ/A/2018/636517
In the matter of:
Dr Mamta Rani
... Appellant
VS
Joint Registrar (Establishment) & CPIO,
Central University of Rajasthan NH-8, Bandar Sindri,
Dist- Ajmer, Rajasthan - 305817
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 30/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 28/09/2018 First appeal filed on : 15/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 14/11/2018 Second Appeal dated : 05/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 17/03/2020 Date of Decision : 17/03/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Hari Singh Parihar, Joint Registrar and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. List of all the faculty members who have applied for promotion from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor since inception of the university till date.
2. Details of API (in all the categories) claimed by the candidates listed in Point No. 1 and API scored by them after verification/evaluation of screening committee.
3. Break up of marks scored by each of the candidate listed in point No. 1 with the marks awarded by respective interview panel.1
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided misleading information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant contested the reply in respect of points no. 2,3 and 6 of the RTI application. She further submitted that the information sought is not voluminous and thus should be provided. She also argued that performance of the Government employees are published on the website and there is nothing to be concealed. She also submitted that the documents are relating to 17 candidates which contains 34 pages. The CPIO submitted that the appellant had asked for information relating to other candidates which cannot be given being personal in nature. He also submitted that the API claim of other candidates are personal information and also cannot be disclosed.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO in the reply stated that in respect of point no. 02 & 03, the requisite details are not available in compiled format and compilation of such information may divert the resources of the University. The claim submitted by the respective faculty members of API calculation is personal information and disclosure of such information does not serve any larger public interest. In respect of point no. 06, the reply given was that the recommendation of interview panel for all the candidates except the appellant cannot be provided since the disclosure of such information does not serve any larger public interest.
Section 8(1)(j) was not relied upon by the CPIO in his reply. However, the Commission is considering the submissions of the CPIO even under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act since law need not be pleaded.
With respect to the issue raised regarding the personal information of the third parties and its non-disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005, the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission &ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......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 2 File no.: - CIC/CUORJ/A/2018/636517 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."
It is relevant to mention here that the API claim of the third parties and recommendations of the interview panel for all the candidates is their personal information. Moreover, the appellant could not demonstrate any larger public interest which would necessitate disclosure of the information. Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO that the information sought by the appellant is purely personal information of the third parties and thus exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be provided to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3