Central Information Commission
Nikhil Gupta vs Gnctd on 15 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164023
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164032
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164033
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164034
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164031
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164029
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164025
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164027
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164026
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164030
Date of Hearing : 16.02.2017
Date of Decision : 28.02.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Nikhil Gupta
Respondent : PIO, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara
Management Committee
Through:
Mr. Harpreet Singh Hora, Advocate
with
Mr. P. Sharma, FAA
Ms. Avneet Kaur, PIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Since both the parties are same in the captioned appeals, these are
clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings.
RTI No. Filed on CPIO reply Ist appeal FAO
164023 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164025 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164026 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164027 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164029 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164030 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164031 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164032 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164033 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
164034 24.03.2017 22.04.2017 03.05.2017 05.06.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Through 10 distinct RTI applications, the appellant sought information about educational qualifications, procedure/criteria adopted for appointment, details of selected candidates against respective positions at Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute, Vasat Vihar, New Delhi.
Sl. Name Post 1. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Sr. Lecturer cum Student Councillor 2. Ms. Navjyot Kaur Sr. Lecturer 3. Ms. Malvinder Kaur Receptionist, 4. Ms. Sarbjot Singh Computer Programmer 5. Mr. Charanjeet Singh Driver -cum-Auto Garage Trainer
Since the RTI applications were undated, the PIO denied furnishing information. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed appeals. However, since the Appellant did not attend the first appellate hearing, the appeals were dismissed for non prosecution.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant states that the PIO deliberately tried to thwart the attempt to secure information by adopting a hyper technical approach. He states that all the RTI applications remained undated due to his oversight and the same was not intentional. He vehemently argued that had PIO being diligent and sincere towards her duties, she could have treated the RTI applications authored on the date of receipt. He asserts that date appended to the RTI application was immaterial and statutory period of 30 days commenced on the date of receipt of RTI application. He states that denial of information is further aggravated with the manner in which his respective first appeals were dealt with by the First Appellate Authority. He states that rather than deciding the appeals on the basis of material on record, the First Appellate Authority also chose to dismiss the appeals in a hyper technical manner. As regard the core issue, the appellant alleges that the staff employed by DSGMC is unqualified to hold the respective positions and there is rampant corruption in recruitment. Per contra, the PIO vehemently opposes the subjective remarks made against her on behalf of the appellant. She states that the RTI applications were deliberately left undated by the appellant with a malafide intention. She states that the appellant could have made a fresh request for information after removing the shortcomings, had he been bonafide. It is further asserted by the respondent that the appellant was an ex-contractual employee of the institution and he has turned disgruntled towards management since a disciplinary action has been initiated against him. The respondent further stated that information sought is a 3rd party information and barred under section 8(1)(j). To advance his contention, Ld. Counsel for respondents places reliance on the decision from Apex Court in Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam and Ors. : MANU/SC/1068/2017. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is asserted that personal details of an employee are exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j).
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the information was denied to the appellant on flimsy grounds. The first contention of the respondent was about undated RTI application. The Commission is quite alive to the seriousness of the issue as the Public Information Officers panic upon the receipt of undated RTI applications. However, the same need not be a trap always, as conceived by Public Information Officer. In such cases, the PIOs are not expected to adopt a hyper technical approach but cite the shortcoming while replying to the RTI application. Under any circumstances, the date of the receipt of RTI application with the PIO only shall be reckoned for the purposes of RTI Act. It is clarified that solely because an RTI application is undated would not be a ground for rejection of same or denial of information if, all other necessities under the RTI Act are fulfilled by the RTI applicant. Having answered the first issue, I shall advert to decide the second issue. The appellant has sought information against the following common queries in all the cases. In all, information relating to five employees was sought through set of queries. For reference, both the set of queries, which are indicative of all cases are reproduced hereinafter:
"1. What was the qualification, scale and post of Mr. Charanjeet Singh at the time of appointment?
2. Whether the aid post was advertised? (yes/No)
3. If answer of query No. 2 is yes, please provide the date and time of the news paper carrying the aid advertisement for the said post.
4. What was the minimum qualification and age for the said /advertised post?
5. Please inform whether Mr. Charanjeet Singh was over-aged at the time of his appointment? (yes/No)
6. If answer of query No. 5 is yes, whether any disciplinary action has been initiated against Mr. Charanjeet Singh? (Yes/No)
7. If answer of query No.6 is yes, please provide the detail and certified copies of the same.
8. Please inform whether Mr. Charanjeet Singh, was appointed as per norms of Directorate of Training & Technical Education (DTTE)/DSGMC? (Yes/No)
9. If answer of query No. 8 is No, whether any disciplinary action has been initiated against Mr. Charajnit Singh? (Yes/No)
10. If answer of query No.9 is yes, please provide the detail and certified copy of the same.
11. Please inform whether as per norms of DTTE/DSGMC, is there any provision of the post of Driver-cum-garage Trainer in any polytechnic affiliated to DTTE? (Yes/No)"
The second RTI application reads as:
1. Please inform whether Mr. Charanjeet Singh is promoted at a Driver-cum- Auto Garage Trainer as per norms of DTTE/DSGMC (Yes/No)
2. If answer of query no. 1 is yes, provide me the certified copy of the rule/norms.
3. If answer of query No.1 is No, whether any disciplinary action has been initiated against Mr,. Charanjeet Singh? (Yes/No)
4. If answer of query No.3 is yes, please provide the detail and certified copies of the same.
5. Please inform me whether Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) wos formed for the post of Driver-cum-Auto Garage Trainer (Yes/No)
6. Please provide the number of minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) related to the promotion of Mr. Charanjeet Singh.
7. Name of all eligible employee who appeared for DPC interview for the post of Driver cum Auto Garage Trainer.
8. What was the criterion followed for promotion? Please provide the certified copy of the same.
The information related to appointments made in Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI). As per the information hosted on institute's website (http://www.gtbpi.in), the institution was established in 1994 by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC). GTBPI is a diploma level technical Institute, approved by AICTE and affiliated to Board of Technical Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) is a statutory body created under the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 1971.
As per the respondents, all queries are personal to the respective employee and hence exempted u/s 8(1)(j). The contention of the respondents is grossly misplaced. The details and basis of appointment, qualification, salary drawn are not personal to the person occupying a position with an institution under the aegis of a statutory body. The essence of the queries is aimed to ascertain if the persons appointed in the institution were offered appointment as per the norms or not. In the considered opinion of the Commission, none of the information sought is personal except for the details of disciplinary action against the respective employees, which is essentially a matter between the employer and employee. An employee receiving funds from a statutory body cannot claim to keep details of his/her appointment, qualifications, details and basis of promotion under wraps. This species of information must rather be readily disseminated suo motu to contain erosion of public faith and promotion of transparency. In the present cases, there have been allegations of impropriety raised against the appointments made in the institute.
Another attempt have been made by the respondents to classify the information sought as personal by placing reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam and Ors. : MANU/SC/1068/2017. The decision in Canara Bank (supra) is regarding the details of posting/ transfer orders of bank employees and the same being held as 'personal' information. In the present set of facts the aforesaid decision has no application.
The DSGMC is a creature of Parliament and enacted under DSGMC Act. Being a statutory body, no part of the information relating to the activities of DSGMC can be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature and hence, the same cannot be denied to any person. Disentitling a citizen from receiving information in such cases would imply that such information can also be denied to the Parliament. Such a position would be disastrous for the democratic setup of the nation. If a citizen questions any public appointment and seeks to know about the recruitment process (advertisement notice) or the salary drawn, his request cannot be turned down. Information sought against the aforesaid points does not offend the Right of privacy of the concerned employees of GTBPI, except for revelation of information regarding disciplinary actions, if any, pending against the employees.
As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are allowed and the PIO, DSGMC is directed to furnish complete information except details of disciplinary actions initiated against the five employees in question.
The decision shall be complied within 3 weeks of receipts under intimation of compliance addressed to the Commission. The appeals are disposed of .
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-