Central Information Commission
R Srinivas vs Department Of Industrial Policy & ... on 30 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DOIPP/A/2020/672066
In the matter of:
R Srinivas
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade,
(IPR- Establishment Section), Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2019 CPIO replied on : 11/12/2019 First appeal filed on : 07/01/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 12/03/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 29/05/2020 Date of Hearing : 30/11/2021 Date of Decision : 30/11/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Santosh Prasad, Under Secretary and CPIO's Representative, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with regard to interview held on 12th May, 2016 for the post of Technical Member (Patents) at DIPP:
1. Provide copies of the applications (Bio-data) along with all enclosures for all the candidates forwarded/received from the O/o The CGPDTM, Mumbai to the DIPP, through proper channel for selection to the post of Technical Member 1 (Patents) in IPAB against advertisement issued in March, 2016 and interview held on 12th May, 2016 at DIPP.
2. Provide copy of the Minutes of the Selection Committee for the interview conducted on 12th May 2016 along with panel list/selection list of the candidates interviewed on 12th May, 2016 for Technical Member (Patents).
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1) ( e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal submitted that he was one of the candidates who appeared for the interview held on 12th May 2016, for the post of Technical Member (Patents) in Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) Chennai conducted by the DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan.
The CPIO's representative submitted that the information relating to third parties are personal in nature and thus cannot be given. He also submitted that bio-data of third parties are purely personal and cannot be given. On a query, regarding minutes of the selection committee meeting, he submitted that the and selection criteria are all existing in the same document.. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO and the FAA both had denied the information sought u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the appellant had asked for the copies of the applications (Bio-data) along with all enclosures for all the candidates forwarded/received from the O/o The CGPDTM, Mumbai to the DIPP, through proper channel for selection to the post of Technical Member (Patents) in IPAB against advertisement issued in March, 2016 and interview held on 12th May, 2016 at DIPP. The same cannot be given to the appellant only due to the fact that he was also one of the candidates who appeared for the interview held on 12th May 2016, for the post of Technical Member (Patents) in Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) Chennai. The fact remains that the other candidates are third party as per the definition u/s 2(n) of the RTI Act and the documents submitted by them are their personal information and hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He pressed for his own bio-data and he was informed that bio-data was created by him and cannot be given in the 2 light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.26781 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in the matter of The Public Information Officer, The Registrar (Administration),High Court, Madras. Vs. The Central Information Commission,& B.Bharathi vide decision dated 17.09.2014 held as follows:
"24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner;
on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect."
In respect of point no. 2, the copy of the Minutes of the Selection Committee for the interview conducted on 12th May 2016 masking the panel list and any third party information u/s 10 of the RTI Act can be given. Decision:
The CPIO is accordingly directed to send the copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting, after masking the exempted information , as discussed above to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
3
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4