Central Information Commission
Santosh Kumar vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 1 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIICL/A/2017/132972-BJ+
CIC/UIICL/A/2017/156488-BJ
Mr. Santosh Kumar
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
RTI Department, Regd. & Head Office,
24, Whites Road, Chennai - 400014
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.07.2018
Date of Decision : 01.08.2018
ORDER
RTI-1: CIC/UIICL/A/2017/132972-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2016 CPIO's response 21.09.2016 Date of filing the First appeal 18.10.2016 First Appellate Authority's response 07.12.2016 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 17.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the total marks given to him in work record (part of CR wise) i.e. personal traits, performance, growth potential pertaining to the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, total marks given to him under the following heads i.e. seniority mark, work record mark, weightage of written test and interview marks and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.09.2016 provided a point wise reply to the Appellant wherein for points 03 & 04, the information sought was denied u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 07.12.2016 concurred with the CPIOs response.
Page 1 of 4
RTI-2: CIC/UIICL/A/2017/156488-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 14.02.2017
CPIO's response 21.03.2017
Date of filing the First appeal 26.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 05.05.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.08.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the marks given to him in work record (part of CR) in a prescribed format for the period 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, certified copy of calculation sheet of marks given to him for the period mentioned above, interview marks performance sheet of all the candidates duly signed by the committee and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.03.2017 provided a point wise reply to the Appellant wherein for point 05, it was stated that information sought was exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 05.05.2017 concurred with the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mrs. R. Meena, Chief Manager / CPIO; Mr. S. Srikanth, Legal Officer through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Mayank Srivastava, Network Engineer NIC studio at Lucknow confirmed the absence of the Appellant. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that information pertaining to the candidate himself had been disclosed but on queries relating to disclosure of details of the performance of all other candidates was not provided under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26.07.2018 (Appeal No. CIC/UIICL/A/2017/132972) wherein while reiterating the RTI application, reply of the CPIO/FAA dated 21.09.2016/07.12.2016, respectively, it was submitted that the information sought regarding query no. 03 was related to personal information of the 'Third Party' and the same did not involve any public interest. Hence, they have claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26.07.2018 (Appeal No. CIC/UIICL/A/2017/156488) wherein while reiterating the RTI application, reply of the CPIO/FAA dated 21.03.2017/05.05.2017, respectively, it was submitted that the information sought in point 05 was related to personal information of the 'Third Party' and the same did not involve any public interest. Hence, they have claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 4
The Commission also referred to several decisions pertaining to disclosure of a candidate's own answer script. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Treesha Irish vs. CPIO and Ors., WP (C) No. 6352 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 while deciding that a candidate was entitled to his own answer sheet had held as under:
21...................... The valued answer paper, if at all, can be a personal information relating to the candidate who has written the same. When the candidate applies for copy of the same, it cannot be denied to the candidate on the ground that it is personal information, insofar as, if that information would compromise anybody, it is the candidate himself/herself. The conduct of the examination for selection to the post of Last Grade officials is certainly a public activity and therefore the valuation of answer papers of that examination has relationship to a public activity of the department in the matter of selection to a higher post. A candidate writing an examination has a right to have his answer paper valued correctly and he has a right to know whether the same has been done properly and correctly. Both the public authority and the examiner have a public duty to get the valuation done correctly and properly, which is a public activity and duty. Therefore the supply of the copy of the answer paper, which is for enabling the candidate to ascertain whether the valuation of the answer paper has been done correctly and properly, has relationship to a public activity or interest.
23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. I am at a loss to understand how disclosure of the valued answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. If at all, it would only enhance the fairness and impartiality of the selection process by holding out to the candidates that anybody can ascertain the fairness and impartiality by examining the valued answer papers. In fact, an ideal situation would be to furnish a copy of the answer paper along with the mark lists of the candidates so that they can satisfy themselves that the answer papers have been valued properly and they secured the marks they deserved for the answers written by them. Therefore the reason given in Ext P3, by the 1st respondent, is patently unsustainable."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 had observed the following in para 11:
"11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or Page 3 of 4 record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act."
It was furthermore stated in para 14 of the above mentioned judgement "The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India CBSE and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the judgment pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu and Anr. V. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal NO.6454/2011. Moreover, the Commission felt that issues of Larger Public Interest affecting selection of meritorious candidates through a fair and transparent selection process were raised by the Appellant during the course of hearing, hence disclosure of information was warranted.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of aforementioned decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 01.08.2018
Page 4 of 4