Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jagdish Balhara vs National Institute Of Open Schooling on 15 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/NIOPS/A/2020/131929

Jagdish Balhara                                         ......अपीलकता /Appellant


                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम

CPIO,
National Institute of Open
Schooling, RTI Cell, RC Chandigarh,
Regional Centre, YMCA Complex,
Sector-11 C, Chandigarh - 160011.                  .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   14/12/2021
Date of Decision                  :   14/12/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   22/06/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   08/07/2020
First appeal filed on             :   27/07/2020
First Appellate Authority order   :   01/09/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   12/10/2020

Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2020 seeking the following information;
1 The CPIO informed the appellant on 08.07.2020 as under -
".....the information sought by you is related to conduct of examination, and is highly confidential & sensitive. As per RTI rule no. 8.1.(e), (g) & (j) the information cannot be provided.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2020. FAA's order dated 01.09.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appealon the ground of denial of information by the CPIO. He further narrated his grievance regarding corruption in the practical examination and misappropriation of funds by the regional center of NIOS, Haryana.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
2
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Gurdev Singh, Regional Director & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant vehemently contested the issue of cheating/ corruption at NIOS, regional examination centres at Haryana as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the details of teachers/invigilators entrusted with such duties at the practical examination centres to facilitate him to resolve the issue of anomaly in the payments made to them in lieu of their charge at examination centres.
The CPIO submitted that timely response has already been provided to the Appellant. He further denied the allegations made by the Appellant against NIOS at the examination centres by explaining in detail the process/procedure in conducting exams at the various centres. He apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant including records of teachers/invigilators and payments made to them for conducting practical exams are confidential in nature, therefore the same has been denied to him under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Lastly, he added that even the copies of payments bills as sought for at point no.2 cannot be provided to the Appellant as it involves the details of various functionaries involved in conduct of practical examination which is also hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal details and payment records of teachers/invigilators against point no. 1 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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; GirishRamchandra 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:
3
"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..."

However, the Commission further observes from a close scrutiny of the contents of RTI Application that complete denial of a copy of the bills in response to point no. 2 by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act was not appropriate.

Now, therefore upon insistence of the Appellant, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a copy of the bills as submitted by A K DAV Public School, Kurukshtera regarding payments for practical examination of September, 2019 (in response to point no. 2) after redacting the personal details and identifying particulars of teacher/invigilators and committee members disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.

The aforesaid information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post and via email within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Further, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through an administrative mechanism.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5