Central Information Commission
Naresh Kumar vs Directorate Of Education on 24 May, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं ा/ Second Appeal No.: CIC/DIRED/A/2020/109476
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/159192
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/158667
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155630
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155313
Naresh Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
PIO,
Assistant Director ofEducation-(SW-
B)/Zone-22,Directorate of
Education(Government of NCT of Delhi)
South-West--B, Najafgarh, NewDelhi-
110043.
2. Nodal Public Information Officer-HQ,
Assistant Director ofEducation-HQ-(RTI),
Directorate of Education(Government of
NCT of Delhi),R.T.I. Branch, Room No.-
220,Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
3. Public Information Officer under RTI
Assistant Director ofEducation-HQ-,
Directorate ofEducation (Government of
NCTof Delhi), Room No.-12,
OldSecretariat, Delhi-110054.
4. Public Information Officer under RTI
Assistant Director ofEducation-(SW-B),
Directorateof Education (Government of
NCT of Delhi), South-West--B,Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
5. Public Information Officer under RTI
Assistant Director ofEducation-(S/E),
Aided &Unaided Private School
Branch,Directorate of
Education(Government of NCT of
Delhi),South-East District,
C-Block,Defence Colony,
NewDelhi-110024.
6. Public Information Officer under RTI
Deputy Director ofEducation-(West-B),
Directorate of Education(Government of
NCT of Delhi),West-B District, Govt.
Boys.Sr. Sec. School No.-1,G-Block,
Vikaspuri, NewDelhi-110018.
... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Date of Hearing : 20-05-2021
Date of Decision : 20-05-2021
CIC/DIRED/A/2020/109476 CIC/DIRED/A/2019/159192
RTI application filed on : 09-10-2019 14-08-2019
CPIO replied on : 06-11-2019 Not on record
First appeal filed on : 18-11-2019 20-09-2019
First Appellate Authority : Not on record Not on record
order
Second Appeal received : 26-02-2020 06-12-2019
at CIC
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/158667 CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155630
RTI application filed on : 02-09-2019 24-08-2019
CPIO replied on : 21-10-2019 Not on record
First appeal filed on : 07-10-2019 26-09-2019
First Appellate : 20-11-2019 Not on record
Authority order
Second Appeal received : 05-12-2019 19-11-2019
at CIC
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155313
RTI application filed on : 04-08-2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 20-09-2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 19-11-2019
सूचनाआयु : ी हीरालालसाम रया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Note: The above referred appeals are clubbed together as they are identical
in nature and preferred by same Appellant against the same Respondent
Authority. Since the issues involved in the present appeals are similar in
nature, the Commission proposes to adjudicate upon them together
through the present order.
CIC/DIRED/A/2020/109476
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO, vide letter dated 06.11.2019, furnished reply to the Appellant as under: Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18-11-2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/159192 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information: Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-09-2019 which was also not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/158667 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2019.
PIO, vide letter dated 21.10.2019, furnished reply to the Appellant as under:
The FAA, O/o Regional Director of Education (East) vide order dated 20.11.2019, held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155630 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26-09-2019 which was also not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155313 The Appellant sought following 04 points information:
Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-09-2019 which was also not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: present on phone.
Respondent:Mr. Ashok Kumar, Nodal PIO, Assistant Director ofEducation-HQ- (RTI),Directorate of Education, present on phone Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the replies of the PIO in either of the cases. He further stated that information sough was wither denied as third-party information or as same being voluminous in nature. He further requested the Commission to look into the matter and direct the PIO to provide the relevant information sought by him in all the referred matters.
Upon Commissions instance, PIO submitted that owing to the circumstances created due to current pandemic he doesn't have the relevant file and thus, won't be able to make any submissions. However, he affirmed that he would comply with the directions of the Commission, if any.
Decision Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that in the matter CIC/DIRED/A/2020/109476appellant has sought information pertaining to a third party which is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, further no larger public interest has been invoked by him.In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...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..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case and deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the informationand upholds the reply of PIO. No further action is warranted in the said matter.
Now,in mattersCIC/DIRED/A/2019/159192, CIC/DIRED/A/2019/158667, CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155630, CIC/DIRED/A/2019/155313 Commission observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO and information sought by him is voluminous and extremely cumbersome in nature. Thus, Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect available and relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Applications, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of the prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012.
Further, PIO must make sure that informationsuch as salary details, qualification, pension details, medical records of concerned third parties or any other record of such sort which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 shall not be disclosed to the appellant during the said inspection. In case, relevant record contains any third-party information then same must be redacted or blacked out prior to the said inspection. Commission's directions should be complied within 30 days after the current situation normalization and PIO rejoins the office and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
All the referred Second Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसाम रया) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 .