Central Information Commission
Nasir Ali vs Directorate Of Education on 30 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DIRED/A/2023/126463
Nasir Ali .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of The Deputy Director
of Education, Distt. South,
Sector-3, R K Puram, New Delhi - 110022 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.09.2024
Date of Decision : 27.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 22.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.06.2023
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"You are requested to furnish following information documents about a teacher namely Sumbul Hashmi, aged 27 years d/o khursheed hashmi who is an intern fellow teaching under a program of teach for India in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya no: 2 Mehrauli(address: G5CH+ GQR, main road, main bazar, naibasti, Mehrauli village, mehrauli new delhi-110030
1. When did Sumbul Hashmi D/o Khursheed Hashmi first join teach for India online & offline (in person)?
2: what salary and HRA is Sumbul Hashmi getting ?
3: Is she getting any other allownces or tutions fee?
4: duration of the service contract? Agreement or joining letter copy?
5: present status of the job?
6: payment mode of salary& HRA?"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 22.03.2023 stating as under:
"1. Sambul Hashni D/o Khursheed Hashmi (joined under NGO TFI) in SKU No.2 Mehrauli on 2nd August 2021 (online).
2. This question pertains to NGO "Teach for India".
3. No allowances granted by SKU. No.2 Mehrauli.
4 Duration in S.Κ.U. Νο.2 Mehrauli is from 2nd August 2021 to 24th December 2022.
5.This question pertains to reach for India (TFI).
6. This question pertains to NGO "Teach for India (TFI)."
Page 2 of 5Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Sashi Kant Singh, DDE & PIO and Ms. Meenakshi Meena, DDE & APIO present in person.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Appellant stated that he is seeking information related to his daughter-in-law and he is entitled to obtain information under the RTI Act.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per the documents available on their record.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that the third party i.e. Ms. Sambul Hashmi has in the meantime left the job without even completing her contractual term.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that complete and correct information as per his RTI application has not been provided to him by the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that complete point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant.
The Commission observes that the Appellant is seeking information which is related to third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Page 3 of 5 of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third party information.
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(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;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment 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; 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 Page 4 of 5 access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply given by the PIO and same is upheld by the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Regional Director of Education (South), C-4 Lane, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)