Asokaraj S vs Canara Bank on 13 February, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Asokaraj S vs Canara Bank on 13 February, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 25.12.2020 and first appeal dated 25.01.2021:-

(i) Provide the list/name of clerks recruited and appointed in the Madurai Circle, Canara Bank, appointing authority wise during the years from 2015 to 2018.

(ii) Provide the list/name of clerks recruited and appointed in the Madurai Circle, Canara Bank by the General Manager, Madurai Circle, Canara Bank (not by other authorities like H.O., Canara Bank, Bangalore) during the years from 2015 to 2018.

(iii) Provide the copies of the appointment (not the posting) orders issued in the Madurai Circle, Canara Bank by the General Manager, Madurai Circle, Canara Page 1 of 4 Bank (not by other authorities like H.O., Canara Bank, Bangalore) during the years from 2015 to 2018.

(iv) Provide a copy of the letter notifying the vacancies to the BSRB by the Madurai Circle, Canara Bank (not by other authorities like H.O., Canara Bank, Bangalore) during the years from 2015 to 2018.

(v) Provide the list/name of clerks recruited and appointed (not the posting orders) by the Assistant General Manager of the Madurai Circle, Canara Bank (not by other authorities like H.O., Canara Bank, Bangalore or the General Manager, Madurai Circle, Canara Bank) during the years from 2015 to 2018 etc. through 09 points.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 25.12.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Tamil Nadu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.01.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.01.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 18.02.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.01.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i), (ii), (v), (viii) & (ix) "Information sought is not maintained in the manner as sought for.

(iii) & (vi) Information sought pertains to third party and is the personal information of the concerned which if revealed or provided would invade the privacy of the concerned and is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, its disclosure has no relationship to any public interest or activity.

(iv) & (vii) No such information is available."

Page 2 of 4

The FAA vide order dated 18.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Elango Subramaniam, CPIO, Canara Bank, Bangalore, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had declined copies of public notifications indicating appointment of employees by invoking provisions under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant was not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was evasive. It may be noted that the appellant having sought the copies of notifications did not involve any personal details of individuals nor any data which attracted the exemption under the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, the plea taken by the respondent that the information was not readily available and the collection or collating the same may divert the public resources disproportionately, and hence may be sustainable. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit point no. (iii) of the RTI application and give revised reply/information in point no. (iii) and by clearly bringing out as to who was the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority for clerks, to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 13.02.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Canara Bank, RIA Section, RL&FP wing, Head Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, 113-1, J C road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560002 First Appellate Authority , Canara Bank, RIA Section, RL&FP wing, Head Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, 113-1, J C road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560002 Shri Asokaraj S Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission