Central Information Commission
Dilbag Singh vs Central University Of Haryana on 7 June, 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/CUVRH/A/2019/649988
Dilbag Singh अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central University of Haryana
RTI Cell, Vill. Jant-Pali, Distt.,
Mahendergarh - 123029, Haryana. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/06/2021
Date of Decision : 04/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/06/2019
CPIO replied on : 03/07/2019
First appeal filed on : 26/07/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 26/08/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.06.2019 seeking information regarding the proceedings of selection committee for the appointment of Registrar which was approved by 28th meeting of EC of CUH agenda item-8, including inter-alia;
1. Copy of the application form of Sh. Ram Dutt Ji for the post of Registrar in CUH along with all annexure/enclosures.
2. copy of the scrutiny committee report which scrutinized the application forms for the post of Registrar vide which Sh. Ram Dutt Ji selected as Registrar at CUH.
3. Copy of the noting /roved by the branch for order of authority on the report of screening committee for the post of Registrar vide which Sh. Ram Dutt Ji selected as Registrar at CUH,
4. copy of the noting moved and decision taken by the University on provisional eligibility(ies) pointed out by the scrutiny committee, if arty, for the post of Registrar vide which Sh. Rani Dutt Ji selected as Registrar at CUH.
5. Copy of the list of the candidates who has/have been made eligible provisional for the post of Registrar vide which Sh. Ram Dun Ji selected as Registrar at CUH,
6. copy of the proceedings of the selection committee for the post of Registrar vide which Sh. Ram Dutt Ji selected as Registrar at CU!-1. ,
7. Copy all experience certificates submitted by it Ram Dutt Ji in Central University of Haryana till date,
8. Copy of application/request along with annexures in respect of Sh. Ram Dutt Ji for deputation in Central' University of Haryana.
9. Copy of all NOC/relieving order(s) in respect of Shri Ram Dint by parent institution while allowing him for deputation in Central University of Haryana for all posh he has hold,
10. copy oldie noting for deputation or Sh. Ram Dutt in Central University of Haryana moved by branch concerned al CUH.
11. Copy of approval of EC minutes for the post of Registrar vide which Sh.
Ram Dutt Ji selected as Registrar at CUH, 2 12, Copy of the appointment letter of Registrar vide which Sh. Ram Dutt Ji selected as Registrar at CUH.
13 Copy of the deputation order(s) at CUH in respect of Sh. Rain Dutt.
14. Copy of the relieving order(s) by parent institution in respect of Sh. Ram Dutt Ji to enable him to join for the post of Registrar at CUH. 15, Copy of Joining, report(s) submitted by Sh. Ram Dutt Ji on various posts at CUH.
16. Copy of the advertisement for the post of Registrar vide which Sh. Rain Dutt Ji has been selected for the post of Registrar at CUH.
17. Copy ofnet qualifications for the post of Registrar at CUH vide which Sh. Ram Dutt Ji has been selected for the post of Registrar."
The CPIO provided a point wise reply to the appellant on 03.07.2019 which is as under:-
Point Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6:- Denied under section 8 (1)(d) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 5:- Copy enclosed at Annexure 'A' Point Nos.10, 15 & 13:- Information asked is not specific. Point No. 11:- The desired information is available on the website of the university i.e. www.cuh.ac.in.
Point Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 12 & 14 :- Denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point Nos. 16 & 17:- Copy enclosed at Annexure 'B' Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2019. FAA's order dated 26.08.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the denial of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Dr. Kulwant Singh Assitant Professor (Dept. Of Law) & CPIO present through audio-conference.3
The Appellant while narrating his grievance contended that his appointment for the averred post was rejected by the selection committee and one Shri Ram Dutt was selected for the post of Registrar although he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. He further contended that he has challenged the appointment of Ram Dutt before the court of law which is pending adjudication and hence, he has sought the desired information through the RTI application but the CPIO denied the information against points no. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,12 & 14 of the RTI Application by wrongly quoting Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He strongly argued that in view of larger public interest involved in the matter,the information should be provided by the CPIO after obtaining the consent of third party's concerned under Section 11 of the RTI Act. He added that CPIO should have furnished a copy of the selection Committee report against point no. 2 of RTI Application.
The CPIO submitted that timely point wise response along with available information was provided to the Appellant in terms of RTI Act. He further submitted that the information sought by the Appellant on points no. 1 to 15 except point no. 5 of the RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party which cannot be divulged under the RTI Act; however, in response to points no. 16 & 17 of RTI Application, a copy of the averred advertisement and also of candidates against point no. 5 have already been supplied to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the denial of the information on points no. 2, 3, 4 & 6 of the RTI Application under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act is grossly inappropriate. Moreover, no substantial explanation justifying the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act was forthcoming from the CPIO during the hearing. However, a bare perusal of the information sought for against points no. 1 to 15 of the RTI Application suggests that it pertains to the selection/appointment matter of third party, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The said observation is in line with 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 4 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..."
In view of foregoing observation, no scope of further relief is pertinent in the matter except on point no. 2 of RTI Application where the Commission upon insistence of the Appellant directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the readily available scrutiny committee report after redacting the personal details of scrutiny committee members and shortlisted candidates of the averred posts, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The said report/information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) नहािन) नहािन Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6