Central Information Commission
Sudhir Janardan Mahashabde vs Indian Institute Of Management, Mumbai on 19 June, 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. (As Per Annexure)
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No.
Sudhiir Janardan Mahashabde ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Institute of
Management, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No./Com Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
plaint mplaint
1. 110935 08.12.2023 05.01.2024 12.01.2024 Not on 05.04.2024
record
2. 110936 08.12.2023 05.01.2024 12.01.2024 Not on 05.04.2024
record
3. 604780 08.12.2023 05.01.2024 12.01.2024 Not on 04.02.2024
record
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 16.06.2025
Date of Decision: 19.06.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Page 1 of 8
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/IIOMN/A/2024/110935 + Complaint No. CIC/NIEMU/C/2024/604780
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
In 2022-23 higher pay scale/Grade pay is given to two Assistant Registrars, when posts of Deputy Registrar were already advertised. At the time of appointment as Deputy Registrar, on demand of one internal candidate extra increments were given to her but she surrendered the same after few months.
I would like to have inspection of all documents, records, circulars, approvals etc. related to offering higher pay scale/Grade pay to Assistant Registrars & recruitment of Deputy Registrars during above period. Details of the Information required -
1. Copies of the request letters from Assistant Registrar for higher scale/Grade pay with recommendations of their superior.
2. Was there any committee appointed in this matter Yes or No? If Committee was appointed please provide names of the Committee members & copy of the Committee's recommendations. Copy of the NITIE Rule or OM of Govt. of India by which higher scale/Grade pay was given.
3. Copy of the Approval for giving higher scale/Grade pay to Assistant Registrars.
4. Was Approval of the NITIE, BOG obtained for giving higher Scale/Grade pay to Assistant Registrars Yes or No? If yes please provide copy of the same. Was Approval of the Ministry of Education/Higher Education obtained for giving higher Scale/Grade pay to Assistant Registrars Yes or No? If yes please provide copy of the same.Page 2 of 8
5. Date from which higher Pay scale/ Grade pay is given to each Assistant Registrar. ..., etc./ other related information 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Details will be made available on a date that is mutually agreed upon.
1. The information prevented under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. The information prevented under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Copy of extract of NITIE 161st BoG meeting enclosed.
3. Copy of extract of NITIE 161st BoG meeting enclosed.
4. Yes.
Copy of extract of NITIE 161st BoG meeting enclosed.
5. The information prevented under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. ..Etc. 1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 1.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 04.02.2024 and Second Appeal dated 05.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IIOMN/A/2024/110936
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
In the year 2023 posts of Assistant Registrars, Accounts officer & few other posts were advertised by NITIE. Most of the other posts were announced as temporary. Out of this only 2 posts of Assistant Registrar are filled & recruitment of rest of the post has been cancelled by NITIE. NITIE appointed IIT, Bombay & its Professor for conducting test/interview for these post & paid huge amount to IIT, Bombay.Page 3 of 8
I would like to have inspection of all documents, records, circulars, approvals etc. related to recruitment of Assistant Registrars, Accounts Officer & other posts advertised during above period. Details of the Information required
1. Copy of letters from various Departments/Sections for requirement of officers for their Department/Section, sanction of the Competent Authority for filling & advertising all posts. Copy of the advertisement appeared in News papers, Website & on Notice Boards.
2. Copy of the approval of the Competent Authority for giving contract to IIT, Bombay for the recruitment process. Copy of the assignment of work/contract given to IIT, Bombay in this recruitment process. Copy of all correspondence between IIT, Bombay/ Professor of IIT, Bombay & NITIE in connection with the recruitment assignment.
3. Copy of the complete report of the Screening Committee & Selection Committee for the recruitment of Assistant Registrars.
4. Copy of the Note/letter for cancelling recruitment of posts which were advertised, Copy of the approval of the same.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Details will be made available on a date that is mutually agreed upon.
1. The copy of advertisement is already available on Institute website (in archives).
However, for your convenience a copy Advertisement is enclosed with this letter.
2. The information prevented under Section 8(1) (d) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. The information prevented under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
4. Corrigendum for cancellation of advertisement had already been uploaded on institute website (archives). However, for your convenience a copy Advertisement is enclosed with this letter.
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.Page 4 of 8
2.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.04.2024. Hearing proceedings and Decision:-
3. The Appellant/Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pramod Singh, Sr. Exertive Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. In file no. CIC/IIOMN/A/2024/110935 and CIC/NIEMU/C/2024/604780, the Appellant/Complainant inter alia submitted that incomplete information had been furnished by the CPIO. Further, he objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (d) &
(j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO for remaining information and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds. Moreover, during the inspection, files/records were produced after redacting third party information, hence, complete information had not been provided by the CPIO. In response, the respondent submitted that a point-wise response to the RTI application had been furnished to the Appellant/Complainant vide their letter dated 05.01.2024, wherein, available information had been furnished to the Appellant/Complainant. He stated that information sought contains personal information of third parties, thus, exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act had been claimed and the same had also been redacted during the inspection. The respondent also informed the Commission that the Appellant/Complainant is frequently filing RTI Applications just to harass the respondent authority which is purely against the spirit of the RTI Act. 2005.
5. In file no. CIC/IIOMN/A/2024/110936, the appellant stated that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought. In response, the respondent submitted that the information sought pertained to the third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. However, available information had been furnished.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO concerned have furnished Page 5 of 8 appropriate replies to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated 05.01.2024. Further, the Commission notes that most of the information sought in all three RTI applications by the Appellant/Complainant pertain to the personal information 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/Complainant 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, 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..."
7. Further, the Appellant/Complainant is reminded that filing the request on similar or same subject matter with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the Page 6 of 8 narrative of the case which has been already responded by the CPIO. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same matter as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant/Complainant on the same subject matter. With these observations, the appeals/complaint are disposed of/closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 19.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Management Mumbai, Vihar Lake Road, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra -
400087 2 Sudhiir Janardan Mahashabde Page 7 of 8 Annexure of Second Appeals/Complaint Sl. No. Second Appeal/Complaint No. 1 CIC/IIOMN/A/2024/110935 2 CIC/IIOMN/A/2024/110936 3 CIC/NIEMU/C/2024/604780 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)