Central Information Commission
Mra Rajagopal vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 11 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001156/7587
11 May 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A. Rajagopal
S/o S. Ayyappa Naidu
53/A1-1 Ambai Road,
Kulavanigarpuram, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli - 05
Respondent : CPIO & DGM (Admin)
BSNL
O/o the Sr. General Manager (IMPC)CM
Mobile Service
III Floor, Annex Building, Halasuru,
Bengaluru-08
RTI application filed on : 30/01/2014
PIO replied on : 06/03/2014
First appeal filed on : 04/03/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 19/04/2014
Second Appeal dated : 13/05/2014
Information sought:-
The appellant has sought the following information about Sh. R Damootharan S/o Ramasubbu working in the grade of Sub Divisional officer in the BSNL Karnataka Cirlce or Bangalore Circle:-
1. The present official address of Sh. Damodharan S/o Ramasubbu.
2. The caste under which he has been appointed initially and subsequently promoted.
3. A copy of caste certificate and nativity certificate produced by him.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. A. Rajagopal through VC Respondent: Mr. N. Ananthasubramanian Bangaluru & Mr. A Krishnamurthy CPIO The appellant stated that he needs copy of the caste certificate submitted by Shri Damodharan employee of BSNL. The CPIO stated that the information relates to third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the employee has objected to the disclosure. The appellant contended that Mr. Damodharan belongs to OBC category but has claimed job under SC quota and hence larger public interest demands disclosure of the information. He also cited Punjab & Haryana High Court ruling holding that selection criteria adopted by PSE for selection of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) and marks allotted for academic qualification experience and interview during selection is not prohibited from disclosure [PSE vs. SIC - AIR 2009 - Punjab & Haryana page -14]. To a query the appellant admitted that he does Page 1 of 2 not have any evidence that Shri Damodharan has submitted a false caste certificate and needs the information to verify the facts.
Decision notice:
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 19 February, 2014 [W.P.(C) 3406/2012 & CM APPL. 7218/2012- UOI Vs R Jayachandran] has held as under:
"13. The relevant portion of the Division Bench in Harish Kumar (supra) is reproduced herein below:-
'9. What we find in the present case is that the PIO had not refused the information. All that the PIO required the appellant to do was, to follow third party procedure. No error can be found in the said reasoning of the PIO. Under Section 11 of the Act, the PIO if called upon to disclose any information relating to or supplied by a third party and which is to be treated as confidential, is required to give a notice to such third party and is to give an opportunity to such third party to object to such disclosure and to take a decision only thereafter.
10. There can be no dispute that the information sought by the appellant was relating to a third party and supplied by a third party. We may highlight that the appellant also wanted to know the caste as disclosed by his father-in-law in his service record. The PIO was thus absolutely right in, response to the application for information of the appellant, calling upon the appellant to follow the third party procedure under Section 11. Reliance by the PIO on Section 8 (1) (j) which exempts from disclosure of personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwanted invasion of the privacy of the individual was also apposite. Our constitutional aim is for a casteless society and it can safely be assumed that the disclosure made by a person of his or her caste is intended by such person to be kept confidential. The appellant however as aforesaid, wanted to steal a march over his father-in-law by accessing information, though relating to and supplied by the father-in-law, without allowing his father-in-law to oppose to such request.'
14. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurman Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 has held that a decision of a Court is per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute. In the present case, as the direction of learned Single Judge in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions bearing W.P.(c) 2232/2012 is specifically contrary to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, this Court is of the view that it is per incuriam."
As per the above cited decision caste certificate submitted by an employee is intended by such person to be kept confidential and since no tangible evidence is available with the appellant regarding any fraud committed by the employee no finding of public interest can be recorded by the Commission.
The appellant has pleaded that he needs the information to verify whether the employee has submitted a false caste certificate. If it be so, the proper remedy for him is to approach the relevant authorities for investigating the matter but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2