Central Information Commission
Ajeet Yadav vs Supreme Court Of India on 26 August, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOLAJ/A/2018/122168/SCOFI
Ajeet Yadav ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, National Judicial ...प्रनतवािीगण
Academy, /Respondents
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal: Hearing: 20.08.2019
RTI : 17.11.2017 FA : 14.01.2018 SA : 09.04.2018
CPIO : 04.12.2017 FAO : 16.02.2018 Hearing: 20.08.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Judicial Academy, NJA, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh seeking information on three points pertaining to recruitment of Manager (Documentation, Communication and Public Relation) mentioned in NJA office order no. 124/17 dated 26.10.2017, including, inter alia,, (i) Xerox of all certified copies of documents (including experience certificate) submitted at the time of application and at the time of joining by (a) Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi and (b) Mr. BBD Shukla; (ii) Xerox Page 1 of 4 of certified copies of answer sheet with marks allotted in the written test as well as the Interview, held on 28/09/2017 at NJA Bhopal in respect of all the candidates for the vacancy of Manager (DCPR) and (iii) Xerox of certified copies of appointment letter and contract of agreement in respect of Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO vide letter dated 04.12.2017 sought postage charges of Rs. 346/-, which was illegal and arbitrary as there is no provision either in the RTI Act or rules for taking money for postage charges from the applicant. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.12.2017 has not mentioned the section of the RTI Act under which he has denied the information to the applicant. The CPIO and FAA have illegally, arbitrarily and willfully tried to hide some wrong doings and denied the information sought by the appellant. The appellant therefore requested the Commission to direct the PIO to supply the information as sought in the RTI application and to impose penalties on the CPIO for violations of RTI Act, and misleading the applicant and denying the information sought for.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Ajeet Yadav was present in person. The respondent Shri Prasidh Raj Singh, Faculty, CPIO, NJAC, Bhopal attended the hearing through video conferencing
4. The appellant submitted that the information sought was not personal information; hence, there was no need to send notice to all the candidates who appeared for the written examination. He further submitted that he had only sought information pertaining to marks obtained in written examination and Page 2 of 4 interview conducted, which is not at all personal information or third party information. He further submitted that CPIO vide letter dated 04.12.2017 sought charges of Rs. 346/- which was illegal and arbitrary.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought was third party information. Hence, the parties concerned were issued notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act seeking their consent with regard to disclosure of information.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought for by the appellant relates to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties and hence, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, information pertaining to marks obtained by the selected candidate(s) and marks obtained by the appellant can be furnished to him. Hence, this Commission directs the CPIO to furnish the information sought for with regards to marks of the selected candidate(s) and marks of the Appellant to the Appellant within four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Commission also observes that the respondent has charged the appellant amount of Rs. 346/- as 'Postage Charges' for sending notice to the concerned parties under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act which is unjust, unreasonable and not as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission therefore, directs the CPIO to return the amount received from the Page 3 of 4 appellant within two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्यसूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 23.08.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S.S.Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority, National judicial academy, Bhadbhada Road, Suraj Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462044
2. The Central Public Information Officer, National judicial academy, Bhadbhada Road, Suraj Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462044
3. Ajeet Yadav Page 4 of 4