Central Information Commission
Gangaram vs University Of Delhi on 27 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UODEL/A/2019/639862
Gangaram ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University of Delhi,
RTI Cell, Delhi-110007. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/09/2021
Date of Decision : 23/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/12/2018
CPIO replied on : 16/01/2019
First appeal filed on : 23/02/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 22/03/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.12.2019 seeking the following information;
1. Criteria of selection of candidates for the said posts.
2. Name, post and address of members and Chairperson/Head of Scrutiny Committee and Interview Committee.
3. Criteria for selecting only those members and Chairperson/Head for Scrutiny Committee and Interview committee.
4. All the Vouchers/bills for payment made to, and all Bills/Receipts/Any other document, including Toll Tax receipts etc., for receiving TA/DA) submitted by, each and every member and Chairperson/Head of Interview Committee.
5. Letters/Invitation Letters/Any other document from DU for inviting each and every member and Chairperson/Head of Interview Committee and Replies/Acknowledgment of all those members and Chairperson/Head to DU.
6. Details of To and fro of each and every member and chairperson/Head of Interview Committee, for which they received payment for travelling.
7. Video recording of said whole Interview.
8. Criteria of scrutiny of the forms for said Interview.
9. Whether Criteria of scrutiny was lowered down, from the criteria already fixed under said Advt. 258/2017. If yes, then on what grounds, upto which extent, such criteria was lowered down, and under what rules/provisions,
10. Letter/Circular/Any other document from appropriate authority to Scrutiny Committee for lowering down criteria for scrutiny.
11. Date and Time of Interview Schedule intimated to the called candidates.
12. Name and Qualification of all candidates, called For interview, and their attendance.
13. Actual timings of starting and closing of Interview of each and every day, on which Interview run.
14. Name of members and Chairperson/Head for Interview Committee for each and every day of Interview.
15. Bifurcation of all marks, given to each and every candidate in Interview by each and every member anti Chairperson/Head of Interview. Committee.2
Merit List of the finally selected candidates, including !heir Names and their qualifications for the said posts.
17. Application Forms. Along with all attached documents of each and every finally selected candidate.
18. Date of joining of each and every candidate, along with their Joining Report/any other document, related to joining.
19. Total number of selected candidates, which were/had been working in University of Delhi, before such selection, along with their name.
20. Date of publication of the merit list/result of the selected candidate on website of University of Delhi and newspapers with their names, and its copy and working Internet /ink.
21. is it mandatory to publish result of selected candidates on website of University of Delhi and newspapers. If yes, then in how much time. Provide the copy of rule/provision for such publication.
The CPIO forwarded the RTI application on 16.01.2019 for seeking assistance under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned officers of DU.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2019. FAA's order dated 22.03.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO 06.03.2019.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that the CPIO has denied the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio-conference hearing on his given contact number).
Respondent: Dr. Jwala Prasad, Assistant Registrar & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that notice of hearing served to the Appellant was received back with the postal remarks "insufficient address". Also, the facts remains that the contact number given by the Appellant on the record does not belong to him.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 22.09.2021 and submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs except personal information of third 3 party, has already been provided to the Appellant through letters dated 16.01.2019 and 06.03.2019, however, both the letters sent twice have been received back undelivered with postal remarks "insufficient address". He further submitted that copy of the said replies has also been sent to the Appellant through email. Relevant portion of the reply is reproduced below -
"Point No. 1, 8-10 Screening and other conditions are available on the website of the University www.du./ac.in under the head Work with DU - >Jobs and Opportunities -> Closed Applications ->Assistant Professor link. Point No.2-6& 14:- The disclosure of names of members of the Selection Committee can endanger their physical safety and is therefore exempted under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. However, a copy of the constitution of Selection Committee is enclosed herewith. There are 13 members in the Selection Committee.
Point No.7 :- There is no provision of video recording of interview. Point No. 11 & 13 Notification of schedule of interview is enclosed herewith. Point No. 12 The list of applicants will reveal information about the candidates who were unsuccessful when compared with the list of selected candidates which are already in the public domain. This information is exempt from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI. Act. Point No.15:- The marks given to the candidates by the selection committee are personal to the candidate concerned in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, if the applicant was a candidate to the interview he may contact the Recruitment Branch with a valid ID proof upto 25th January 2019.
Point No.16, 20-21:- The list of selected candidates is available on the www.du./ac.in under the head Work with DU with DU ->Jobs and Opportunities -> Closed Applications -Assistant Professor link. Point No. 17 :- Information sought by the applicant includes information which is otherwise personal to the candidates concerned and therefore exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Point No. 18-19:- Information may be obtained from Lay. Registrar (Estab.- T). "
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia 4 hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Complainant could not be heard of, the Commission is constrained to dispose of the case after hearing submissions of the CPIO and perusing the case records on merits.
In doing so, the Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for at points no. 2,4-7,12,14-18 and 19(2nd part) including TA/DA and other related details of Selection Committee members, proceeding of entire averred interview and also details of other candidates stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Complainant 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 4 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 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..."
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the queries raised at points no. 9 and 21 do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarification/inference from the CPIO based on his interrogatories. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the 5 RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.His attention is also drawn a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply given by the CPIO on all the points adequately suffices the information sought for by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief in the matter.
However, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and exercise due process of law as per the RTI Act while divulging any third party's personal information to the applicant which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.6
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7