Central Information Commission
Sai vs Niper, Hyderabad on 13 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPHY/A/2023/609189
Sai ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Institute of
Pharmaceutical Education and
Research, Hyderabad ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.07.2022 FA : 19.07.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 18.07.2022 FAO : Nil Hearing : 06.06.2024
Date of Decision: 11.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"The details of essential educational qualifications of six shortlisted candidates for tier II exam in technical assistant computer section and the application copies of the six shortlisted candidates for Tier II examination in respect of the post code NT-004 Technical Section (computer section) conducted vide NIPER Advt no. NIPER-HYD/2021-22 Page 1 of 4 conducted on 12/04/2022, may please be provided at earliest. The list shown on website is attached for information."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"All six candidates shortlisted for Teir-II examination for the post code NT-004 (i.e., Technical Assistant-computer section) have the requisite educational qualifications as mentioned in the advertisement. Further, the applicant copies of the candidates cannot be provided under the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI act."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated Nil upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Manoj Dhote, Adm. Officer & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent reiterated the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it concerns the personal information of third parties. 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 Page 2 of 4 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..."
8. Having observed as above, and in the absence of any larger public interest apparent in the disclosure of the information, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 11.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा (ररटायर्ग ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education And Research, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500037
2. Sai Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)