Central Information Commission
Ram Sajan Prabhakar vs National Board Of Examinations on 14 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NBDOE/A/2023/639578
Shri Ram Sajan Prabhakar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Board of Examinations ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2024
Date of Decision : 12.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.05.2023
PIO replied on : 02.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : 06.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 14.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I Ram Sajan Prabhakar working in the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences as a Section Officer. I had requested to the Administration Department of NBEMS to provide some information vide my letter dated 28.02.2023 which was either pertains to me or was a public information by nature. However, no reply in this regard received so far. Hence, I humbly request you to provide the following information under the RTI Act 2005:
1. Copy of all those portions/pages of enquiry report submitted by Retd. IAS Officer Sh. Afzal Amanullah where he has given the comments or has mentioned his remarks about the Departmental Promotion Test (DPT) conducted by NBEMS in past i.e. during the period of 2014 to 2016.
2. Copies of Action taken report by NBEMS on the above remarks/comments given by Sh. Afzal Amanullah in his report for DPT.
3. Copies of all noting and documents pertaining to grant of designation of Section Officer with effect from November 2019 vide NBEMS office order no. A.32014/1/2021- Estt/140 dated: 02.06.2021
4. Copies of all noting, documents and minutes of meetings pertaining to the proceedings where the grant of designation of Section Officer as mentioned at sr. no. 3 Page 1 of 5 above had been kept in abeyance and informed me through office order no. A.32014/1/2021/Estt./366 dated: 20-12-2021.
5. Copies of all noting, documents and minutes of meetings pertaining to the cancellation of office order no. A.32014/1/2021-Estt/140 dated: 02.06.2021.
6. Copies of all noting, documents and minutes of meetings pertaining to processing of disposal of reply to all representations submitted by me to the Administration Department of NBEMS vide letters and reminders dated: 03-09- 2021, 06-07-2022, 29- 08-2022, 07-10-2022, 27-10-2022, 03-02-2023 & 09-02- 2023.
7. Copies of NBEMS rules under which my above representations have been turn down citing the non-conformity of rules by the competent authority of NBEMS. Also provide the copy of notification where the above rules have been notified earlier.
8. Copies of my APAR for last 5 years. ETC."
The CPIO, National Board of Examinations in Medical vide letter dated 02.06.2023 replied as under:-
"the information requested vide your letter dated 28/02/2023 has been provided to you vide NBEMS Letter dated 31/05/2023.
Point No. 1:-The Governing Body in its meeting held -on 08.10.2021 decided that the grant of -designation be "kept in abeyance" and be submitted before the Committee constituted to review the matters regarding RRs, DPCs and Promotions under the chairmanship of Prof. Minu Bajpai, Vice President-NBEMS and Hony. Executive Director. (copy of the relevant Governing Body meeting 08.10.2021 enclosed) held on The meeting of the Committee constituted to review matter regarding RRs, DPC and Promotions was held on 07.03.2022 and the committee recommended that the grant of designation was done without holding DPC is incorrect and to be rescinded. The Committee further recommended that the DPC meeting should be held at the earliest as per the Recruitment Rules approved by the Governing Body on 16.08.2019. The minutes of the committee were approved by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 13.03.2022. (copy of the relevant minutes of the meeting enclosed) Point No. 2:-Your representation was considered by the Committee constituted to review matters regarding RRs, DPCs and Promotions and further by the Governing Body in the month of November, 2022 and turned down being devoid of merit. (copies of relevant minutes enclosed) Point No. 3:-Copy of Recruitment Rules, 2006 and any amendments and make therein prior to 2019, enclosed, as per available records. Point No. 4:-Copies of notifications/order/notice related to DPT for promotion to the post of Section Officer notified prior to 2019 enclosed, as per available records. Point No. 5:-Copy of Recruitment Rules-2019 and its amendments made therein after its implementation enclosed, as per available records. Point No. 6:-Copy of your APAR of last five years APAR enclosed."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 14.07.2023 stated as under:-
"Point 1 and 2. As the information sought may be qualified as personal information, vide DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR/Pt.) dated 14.08.2013, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and therefore is exempt from Page 2 of 5 disclosure under the section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Point 3. Copy of the Noting and Office Order can be collected from the NBEMS Office by paying Rs. 2/- per page. Point 4. Copy of the Noting can be collected from the NBEMS Office by paying Rs. 2/- per page.
Point 5 and 6. The noting of the file contains information which relates to personal information of other officers of NBEMS also (other than RTI applicant) as well and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and is exempt from disclosure under the section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Point 10. No noting related to introduction of DPT Scheme is traceable in Administration Section. Information regarding the sub-points is as under: i. The DPT scheme and its notification of Recruitment Rules has already been provided. The minutes of the Governing Body is not available with the Administration Section. ii. Vacancy statement of that time is not available with the Establishment Section. Point 11. The DPT Scheme has been discontinued with the approval of the Governing Body in its meeting held on 16.08.2019 and the same has not been again introduced since then.
Point 13. The noting of the file contains information which relates to personal information of other officers/officials of NBEMS (other than RTI applicant) as well and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and is exempt from disclosure under the section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Point 14. In RTI Act, no processing of file in involved. The information asked is provided to applicant as it is available in the Section without processing."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant reiterating the background behind filing of the case and stating that only incomplete/partial information has been furnished by the Appellant. He has specified that information with respect to queries 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 and 10 have not been provided to his satisfaction. The written submission has been duly taken on record. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Laxman Singh Negi, Assistant Director, NBEMS was present for the hearing.
During the course of hearing, the Respondent stated information available on record and permissible under the RTI Act has been duly provided, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has also been requested to pay requisite photocopy charges and collect information with respect to the queries 3 and 4.
It has also been contended by the Respondent that information sought by the Appellant relates to senior officials of the Respondent against whom charges of financial and administrative misconduct had been levelled and found to be true upon enquiry and investigation. Accordingly penal action had been initiated against the guilty and the charged officials have now approached the Court of law against their conviction. The Appellant who had no locus in the entire matter and is not a party to the said enquiry proceedings has sought information about the enquiry report, hence Page 3 of 5 disclosure of the information had been denied to him under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as being personal information relating to third party, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In the light of the aforementioned facts and discussions, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent present for hearing, to revisit the RTI queries and send a revised reply with respect to queries number 5 and 6 of the RTI application furnishing only such information from available records which relates to the Appellant. The Respondent should exercise due caution and ensure that the revised reply should be strictly confined to information relating to the Appellant alone and should not contain any data which is expressly barred from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also ensure any third party information is duly redacted therefrom under Section 10 of the RTI Act, if deemed necessary while sending the revised reply as sought by the Appellant. The Respondent shall send the revised reply, within four weeks of receipt of this order submit a compliance report before the Commission, within one week thereafter, failing which appropriate non compliance proceedings shall be initiated against the concerned official.
Before parting with case, emphasizing the need of ease of accessibility and transparency of operation, the Commission recommends the Respondent-PIO to take necessary steps for suo motu disclosure of maximum information related to recruitment and promotion, DoPT guidelines and departmental promotions test scheme and make it available in electronic format on the website of the Respondent, in compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act. Such suo motu disclosure of information in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act on the website will ensure that the public need minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. While proactively disclosing the information mentioned above, in the larger public interest, due caution should also be exercised by the Respondent public authority to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act and redact any information which falls under the purview of the Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
The Commission finds that suitable appropriate response has been furnished by the Respondent with respect to the remaining queries, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act and hence no further intervention is warranted with respect to the remaining queries.
The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Page 4 of 5 Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)