Central Information Commission
Ravindra Kumar Kain vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 16 August, 2022
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/BECIL/A/2021/137732
Ravindra Kumar Kain ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Broadcasting Engineering Consultant
India Limited, RTI Cell, BECIL Bhawan,
C-56, A/17, Sector-62 Noida - 201307,
Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/08/2022
Date of Decision : 16/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/04/2021
CPIO replied on : 24/05/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/07/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 28/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/08/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.04.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "What is the joining date of Smt. Avantika as Contractual employee in BECIL? Please provide copy of her contractual appointment letter.
2. What is the joining date of Smt. Avantika as Permanent employee in BECIL?
Please provide copy of her permanent appointment letter.
13. What was her post and qualification at the time of her contractual appointment in BECIL. Please provide copies of her qualification certificates submitted at the time of joining.
4. What was her post and qualification at the time of her permanent appointment in BECIL. Please provide copies of her qualification certificates submitted at the time of joining.
5. Please provide copy of Advertisement published for recruitment of regular employees in BECIL during FY 2008-2009?
6. Please provide list of exam centres of Written Test of Management Trainees and date of Written examination.
7. Please provide the result/merit list of Written Test held for selection of Management Trainees (HR) in FY 2008-2009.
8. Please provide the result/merit list of Interview held for selection of Management Trainees (HR) in FY 2008-2009.
9. How many marks obtained by Smt. Avantika in written test and Interview? What was the qualifying marks for Written Test and Interview for selection of Management Trainee?
10. What was the selection criteria for Management Trainees (HR) for exam held in FY 2008-2009?
11. Please provide the details (i.e Name, Designation, Address) of Member of Selection Committee/board for Management Trainee (HR) in FY 2008-2009.
12. How many candidates appeared in Interview of Management Trainee (FIR)
13. Please provide authentic copy of MBA degree of Mrs. Avantika submitted at the time of joining?
14. How many candidates applied for post of Management Trainee (HR) in FY 2008-2009.
15. Please provide copies of Medical Reports submitted by her at the time of joining. On which date she submitted her Medical Reports in BECIL.
16. How many promotions have been given to Mrs. Avantika in BECIL since-her date of joining till April 2021, please provide the details in a tabular format."
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 24.05.2021 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2021. FAA's order dated 07.07.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
2"... it is a humble request that you may kindly intervene into'.@ matter of inappropriate hiring at permanent posts in BECIL and terminate the services of all these employees appointed this year including Smt. Avantika Malhotra from BECIL on the basis of her fake documents and forgery'.."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Mamata Bhardwaja, Executive Assistant (HR-Admin.) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that since the information sought for in the RTI Application related to the personal information of a third party, the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the relief sought for in the Second Appeal is not maintainable as the Appellant has sought for the termination of services of various employees, which is outside the scope and ambit of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of intervention in the matter as the CPIO has appropriately denied the information related to the service matter of a third party under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(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 the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."3
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., (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..."
Now, pertinently so, the Appellant has not sought for any relief regarding seeking access to information but has sought for the Commission's intervention to terminate the employees who he alleges have been appointed based on forgery. As regards the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a 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."4
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...."
Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
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