Central Information Commission
Mahesh Sampat Ghule vs Iit Goa on 16 November, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसचू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No.: CIC/IITGO/A/2020/120231
Mahesh Sampat Ghule ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Technology,
GOA, RTI Cell, GOA COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING CAMPUS,
FARMAGUDI, GOA- 403401 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/11/2021
Date of Decision : 15/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/03/2020
First appeal filed on : 01/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 09/06/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/07/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.02.2020 seeking information pertaining to a written examination and Computer Proficiency Test for the post of "Jr. Administrative Assistant" dated September 15, 2019, which was advertised vide Advt. No. IITGoa/RECT/01/2019 dated 21.01.2019 by IIT Goa. In this regard, he asked for the following information;
1. Certified copy of Marks secured by all the candidates in written exam.
2. Certified copy of Marks secured by all the candidates in Computer Proficiency Test.
3. Please give cut off marks for written examination to call candidates for Computer Proficiency Test.
4. Certified copy of approval of authority deciding weightage given to the written examination and Computer Proficiency Test for the final selection of the candidates for the post.
5. Certified copy of approval of final merit list approved by the appointing authority.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.03.2020 and also the relevant information against points no 3, 4 & 5 of the RTI application and with regard to points no 1 & 2, the CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2020. FAA's order dated 09.06.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO. Further, the FAA also informed the appellant that you are free to ask for the marks obtained by him only in the examination conducted by the institute and also held that rest of the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO under the garb of Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Mustaque Khan, Sr. Superintendent (Nodal officer- RTI) present through audio-conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his Second Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. He further harped on the fact that as per the usual practice the list of selected candidates and their marks are uploaded on the notice boards by the other IITs, therefore in order to maintain uniformity such information should be divulged by the CPIO, IIT Goa as well.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. He further apprised the Commission that as per their extant procedure only the names of selected candidates are made public, however, their marks are not uploaded on their website.
Lastly, the Appellant prayed the Commission that he being one of the candidates in the averred exams therefore, direction may be issued to the CPIO to provide a certified copy of his marks in the written exam and computer proficiency test. He further contested that CPIO should also be directed to provide a copy of question paper along with the answer keys of the averred written exam.
Rebutting the contention of the Appellant, the CPIO explained that the questions for the said exams are prepared by the experts members of IIT, Mumbai as there is a fairly new Institute , they don't have a wide question bank as also the fact that there are elements of intellectual property, therefore they don't divulge such information.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the denial of marks of other candidates against points no. 1 & 2 of RTI Application by the FAA under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was appropriate. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is 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 2010wherein 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..."
Moreover, here it is also relevant to cite a judgment dated 06.08.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of UPSC vs. Gaurhari Kamila wherein the following was held in the context of disclosure of marks of other candidates:
"By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgement, we hold that the CIC committed a serious illegality by directing the Commission to disclose the information sought by the respondent at point no. 4 and 5 and the High Court committed an error by approving his order.
We may add that neither the CIC nor the High Court came to the conclusion that disclosure of the information relating to other candidates was necessary in larger public interest. Therefore, the present case is not covered by the exception carved out in Section 8 (1)(e) of the Act."
Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for at points no. 3- 5 of RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief in the matter.
Now, considering the limited prayer of the Appellant during hearing, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a certified copy of Appellant's marks in the written exams and computer proficiency test against averred advertisement. The aforesaid information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post and email within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
ADVISORY A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar nature of cases dealt with by this bench in the recent past is that a number of RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on various policy matters regarding cut off/weightage of marks accorded in various competitive exams. It will be in the best interest of IIT, Goa to explore the viability of introducing a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought for clarifications can be identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suomotu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking weightage/cut off marks.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक िदनांक /