Central Information Commission
Dr R Thangasamy vs Central University Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CUOTN/A/2024/107579
Dr. R. Thangasamy ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Central University of Tamil Nadu, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.10.2022 FA : 30.12.2022 SA : 01.03.2024
CPIO : 28.11.2022 FAO : 02.02.2023 Hearing : 05.03.2025
Date of Decision: 18.03.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Upon University letter no: CUTN-10(7)/2020-Legal/51 Dated 18.03.2021 and according to the application of ASSIGLY076 in Sl. No: 21, A. Please confirm the details whether the University Selection Committee while awarding API score, API Score - 30 has been awarded for the applicant Ph.d degree. Yes/No?Page 1 of 4
B. Further please give the details of the API Score provided by the University as below:
i. Academic and Research API Score Provided by the University:
Performance (50%): 83
ii. Assessment of Domain knowledge UG
and technical skill (30%) PG
Ph.D
Upon University letter no: CUTN-10(7)/2020-Legal/51 Dated 18.03.2021 and according to the application of ASSIGLY139 in Sl. No: 131, A. Please confirm the details whether the University Selection Committee while awarding API score, API Score - 30 has been awarded for the applicant Ph.d degree. Yes/No?
B. Further please give the details of the API Score provided by the University as below:
i. Academic and Research API Score Provided by the University:
Performance (50%): 55
ii. Assessment of Domain knowledge UG
and technical skill (30%) PG
Ph.D
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Information is related to third party and it is unable to be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 02.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.Page 2 of 4
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.03.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Sangeeta, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant reiterated the background of the RTI application and submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO is not satisfactory. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has sought education details and API score given by the university to Ms. Priyanka Rao (third party) to which the CPIO denied the above said information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as disclosure of third-party information would not serve any public interest.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 28.11.2022. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the personal details of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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 & amp; 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, Page 3 of 4 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..."
9. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 18.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Neelakudi Campus, Kanglancherry, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu - 610005
2. Dr. R. Thangasamy Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)