Central Information Commission
Krishna vs Staff Selection Commission on 14 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SSCOM/A/2020/119321
Krishna ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission
RTI Cell, Block No-12, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/09/2021
Date of Decision : 06/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 15/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 13/01/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/05/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2020 seeking information as under regarding SSC GD (const.) Exam, 2018:2
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 15.01.2020 as under:
Being dissatisfied with the denial of information on point no.4 of the RTI Application, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2020. FAA's order dated Nil upheld the CPIO's reply.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal seeking relief on points 3 & 4 of the RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: H.L. Prasad, Under Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that she is aggrieved with the fact that initially she was informed that no information is available for point no.3 of the RTI Application and now before the hearing she has been informed that there is no provision to provide incentive to NCC certificate holders. She further stated that she is also dissatisfied with the denial of the information related to the normalisation of marks of the last three candidates figuring in the merit list and narrated her grievance emanating from normalisation of her own marks.
The CPIO submitted that if the Appellant wants information related to normalisation of her own marks, she can send a representation to them and same will be provided to her and as for the RTI Application, the available and permissible information has been provided to her.3
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO. The Appellant's insistence on relief to be provided on point no.4 of the RTI Application cannot be acceded to as the information sought for therein pertains to the marks obtained by third parties and disclosure of the same stands exempted 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 & 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, 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..."
Further, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for at point no.3 of the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the said query seeks for 4 clarifications/justifications, both of which does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, no action is warranted in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue her grievances related to the normalisation of marks before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5