Central Information Commission
G Mohammad vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 3 January, 2018
Central Information Commission
CIC Building, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311623/MOHRD/MP, CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311620/MOHRD/MP,
CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311626/MOHRD/MP, CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311627/MOHRD/MP,
CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311628/MOHRD/MP, CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311629/MOHRD/MP,
CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311630/MOHRD/MP, CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311632MOHRD/MP,
CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311633/MOHRD/MP, CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311634/MOHRD/MP,
CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311635/MOHRD/MP, CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311636/MOHRD/MP
Appellant : Shri G. Mohammad, New Delhi.
Public Authority : Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education &
Sports Sciences, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 14th December, 2017.
Date of Decision : 02nd January, 2018
Present
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri Gulshan Pahwa, CAPIO & Shri Bharat
Bhushan, Section Officer (Adm) at CIC.
ORDER
The following twelve appeals from Shri G. Mohammad were heard by the Commission on 14.12.2017. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311623/MOHRD/MP 1.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi and sought to know whether the appointment of Lecturer could be made during the summer break; was there any such rule or guidelines in this regard; reasons which caused such an urgency for appointment of Dr. Ashok Singh as Lecturer during the summer break; copies of documents submitted by Dr. Ashok Singh for appointment to the post of Lecturer; copy of advertisement; copies of documents that prove that all requisite procedure and policies were followed in the appointment of Dr. Ashok Singh; copies of synopsis of all candidates who appeared for the post of Lecturer on which Dr. Ashok Singh was 1 appointed; report of the selection committee along with reason for which Dr. Ashok Singh was preferred over the other candidates; educational qualification and relevant experience required to be appointed to the post of lecturer at the time of appointment of Dr. Ashok Singh etc. through fourteen points.
1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 provided copy of University calendar Vol. I (Ordinance 12 & 18); copy of constitution of selection committee; and also provided copy of experience required to the post of lecturer and on remaining points the appellant was informed that the information sought pertained to 20 years old record which was not available or the information sought did not fall within the definition of information under the RTI Act, 2005. He however denied the copy of the minutes of selection committee being confidential. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
1.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 for having been given unsatisfactory reply and information.
1.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided available and disclosable information under the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
1.5 Having considered the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents, the Commission observes that the CPIO had provided available information and could not provide the information which was not available with IGIPESS or which did not fall within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. As per Section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, the respondent authority is supposed to provide information which is held or under the control of the public authority as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya & Ors held that "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". The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
2Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311620/MOHRD/MP 2.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi and sought information in respect of appointment of Shri Gopal Singh, S.O. Accounts; whether the appointment of Shri Gopal Singh, then Assistant, was on a permanent or ad-hoc basis; copies of documents submitted by Shri Gopal Singh at the time of appointing him on ad-hoc basis; copy of advertisement for appointment of Shri Gopal Singh; details of selection committee; copy of recommendations of the selection committee; educational qualification and experience required to the post of Assistant on ad-hoc basis; copies of educational qualification submitted by Shri Gopal Singh; minutes of governing body confirming the appointment of Shri Gopal Singh etc. through twenty four points.
2.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 provided copy of order relating to the appointment of Shri Gopal Singh, Assistant on ad-hoc basis and his date of appointment and informed the appellant that the information sought pertained to 27 years old record and not traceable in records and information sought on most of the points did not fall within the meaning of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and denied copies of certificates and documents relating to education qualification and experience in respect of Shri Gopal Singh being personal information of third party. The CPIO informed the appellant that the recruitment rules were available in the Delhi University website.
2.3. Thereafter, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds of wrong and misleading information had been provided by the CPIO and the CPIO did not respond to the RTI application within the stipulated period.
2.4 The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the CPIO had provided the available and disclosable information under the RTI Act, 2005.
2.5 The Commission observes that the information as sought by the appellant in respect of appointment of Shri Gopal Singh, Assistant pertained to more than 27 years old record and personal information of third party. The CPIO had appropriately replied to the appellant and provided disclosable and available information to the appellant within the stipulated period as the RTI application dated 24.05.2016 was received by the CPIO on 30.05.2016. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311626/MOHRD/MP 3.1. Shri G. Mohammad, the appellant, vide RTI application dated 24.5.2016, sought the copy of decision of High Court relating to Shri B.B. Khatri and Shri Gopal Singh's promotion case; copy of decision of IGIPESS regarding the statement given to High 3 Court that the Institute would promote the said employees in spite of their questionable appointments; copy of rules which state that the Governing body or the Institute could promote an employee whose appointment was dubious; if no such rule existed, then, whether the Institute had filed a fresh case against the above stated employees; etc., through seven points.
3.2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in a point wise response dated 1.7.2016, provided the copies of orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 6.3.2014, 19.5.2014 and 4.7.2014 under point 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application. The CPIO further stated that the appellant did not seek any 'information' under the RTI Act, 2005 in point 5 and informed that the inquiry was conducted by the Review Committee appointed by the Governing Body of IGIPESS in 1994 under point 6 of the RTI application. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 30.7.2016 stating that the CPIO did not provide specific information and denied information to him on vague grounds. The appellant, therefore, requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information to him on all points of his RTI application. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter.
3.3 Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commission on 6.10.2016 reiterating his request for providing complete information and to impose penalty upon the CPIO. In addition to the above, the appellant also sought necessary action against the CPIO and the FAA for providing delayed, incorrect and misleading information to him.
3.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided copy of the order dated 06.03.2014, 19.05.2014 and 04.07.2014 of High Court of Delhi and replied point-wise to the appellant.
3.5 The Commission observes that the respondent authority had appropriately responded to the appellant and finds no infirmity in the response of the CPIO. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is closed.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311627/MOHRD/MP 4.1. Shri G. Mohammad, the appellant, vide RTI application dated 24.5.2016, sought information regarding appointment of Shri B.B. Khatri as S.O. (Admin) to the Institute; whether or not Shri B.B. Khatri was appointed on permanent basis or ad-hoc basis; attested authenticated copies of all the documents related to ad-hoc appointment of Shri B.B. Khatri; copy of the advertisement against which Shri B.B. Khatri was appointed as Assistant on ad-hoc basis; copies of procedure and policies followed in appointment of Shri B.B. Khatri on ad-hoc basis as Assistant; details of Selection Committee; etc., through 24 points.
4.2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in a point wise response dated 1.7.2016, stated that Shri B.B. Khatri was appointed on ad-hoc basis to the post of 4 Assistant w.e.f. 28.4.1989 and all the Rules laid down for appointment by the University were followed under points 1, 4 and 13 of the RTI application. The CPIO further informed the appellant that he had mostly sought very old records which were almost 27 years old and were not traceable in the office. He, however, provided the copy of office order dated 1.1.1991 under point 22. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 30.7.2016 stating that the CPIO did not provide specific information and the documents provided to him were not duly authenticated. The appellant, therefore, requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information to him on all points of his RTI application. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter.
4.3 Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commission on 6.10.2016 reiterating his request for providing complete information and to impose penalty upon the CPIO. In addition to the above, the appellant also sought necessary action against the CPIO and the FAA for providing delayed, incorrect and misleading information to him.
4.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had sent a point-wise reply to the appellant and provided the information as available on records. The appellant had sought information pertaining to a very old record of more than 27 years in respect of appointment of Shri B.B. Khatri, SO.
4.5 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the CPIO is supposed to provided information as per Section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is held or under the control of the public authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311628/MOHRD/MP 5.1. Shri G. Mohammad, the appellant, vide RTI application dated 24.5.2016, sought attested and authenticated copies of fixation papers regarding Shri B.B. Khatri, S.O. (Admin), for appointment to the post of S.O. (Admin), copies of all the letters and replies received from University of Delhi relating to fixation of pay of Shri B.B. Khatri; authenticated and attested copies of all the above said documents. 5.2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), vide response dated 24.6.2016, informed that the case of pay fixation of Shri B.B. Khatri was under process and his pay was yet to be fixed by the University of Delhi. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 30.7.2016 stating that the CPIO did not provide any information/documents sought by him and requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide the same at the earliest. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter.
5.3 Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commission on 6.10.2016 reiterating his request for providing the information/documents specifically sought by him in the RTI application and to impose penalty upon the CPIO. In addition to the 5 above, the appellant also sought necessary action against the CPIO and the FAA for providing delayed, incorrect and misleading information to him.
5.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided the information which was relevant at that point of time.
5.5 The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information relating to fixation of pay in respect of Shri B.B. Khatri at the time of promotion to the post of SO, if already decided or else provide the current status to the appellant within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311629/MOHRD/MP 6.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 01.07.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking copies of documents with regard to the court case of Shri O.P. Pahawa; whether the case had been decided by the Court of Law; in whose favour the Court decided the case; whether IGIPESS appealed before the higher court against the verdict; copies of submissions made by the Institute before the court of law in the case after 31.08.2015; copies of documents provided to the court including evidence, final arguments of both the parties; the name of advocates who handled the case for the Institute against Shri O.P. Pahawa; the reason for changing the advocate after 31.07.2015; details of the employees of the Institute who had been entrusted with the duty of handling the court case; relationship of these employees with Shri O.P. Pahwa; the reasons for transfer of case from High Court to Labour Court; copies of minutes of the governing body confirming the release of payment to Shri O.P. Pahawa the total amount being paid to Shri Pahawa; copy of permission obtained from the Delhi Government/DHE/ELFA before releasing the payment etc. through twenty five points.
6.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 reply in affirmative that the case had been decided by Court relating to Shri O.P. Pahwa; provided the name of the Advocate who was handling the case in the Court and also informed the appellant that no submissions were made in the Court after 31.08.2015 and sent a point-wise reply on rest of the queries. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
6.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the ground that unsatisfactory information was provided to him as all the answers were framed in a way so as not to provide any specific information.
6.4 The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the CPIO had sent a point- wise reply based on available records.
66.5 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and observes that the CPIO had appropriately sent a point-wise response to the appellant based on available records. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311630/MOHRD/MP 7.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking attested copies of fixation papers with regard to Shri Gopal Singh, S.O. Accounts for promotion to S.O. Accounts and also provide all letters and replies received from Delhi University with regard to the fixation of pay of Shri Gopal Singh; copies of all documents and certificates through two points.
7.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 provided the pay fixation order of Shri Gopal Singh, SO. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA), who does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
7.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds that unsatisfactory information with regard to irregularities that might have happened in the fixation and promotion of the official in question. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal.
7.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided copy of pay fixation order in respect of Shri Gopal Singh, SO to the appellant.
7.5 The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided information to the appellant as sought by the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311632/MOHRD/MP 8.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking information about the appointment of Shri Gulshan Pahawa as Assistant in the Institute; whether Shri Pahawa appointed on permanent or ad-hoc basis; copies of documents for appointment along with date of appointment of Shri Pahawa on ad-hoc basis in case he was appointed on ad-hoc basis; documents that prove that all requisite procedure and policies were followed for a free and fair appointment of Shri Pahawa; details of the selection committee and also their eligibility for appointing of such cases; synopsis of all the candidates who appeared for the position on which Shri Pahawa was appointed on ad-hoc basis; detailed report of the selection committee etc. through twenty four points.
78.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 informed the appellant that initially Shri Gulshan was appointed on ad-hoc basis and further informed the appellant that the information as sought was pertained to more than 27 years and not traceable; and recruitment rules were available on the Delhi University's website and denied copies of certificates in respect of Shri Gulshan Pahwa being third party information. The CPIO, however, provided the copy of confirmation order under point 22. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
8.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds that unsatisfactory information having been provided by the CPIO that that too after a lapse of 30 days. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal filed before him.
8.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided information based on available records and sent a point-wise reply to the appellant within the stipulated period.
8.5 The Commission observes that the CPIO had responded to the appellant within stipulated period and sent a point-wise reply based on available records, as the information sought by the appellant pertained to a very old records of more than 27 years. As per Section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is supposed to provide information which is held or under the control of the public authority. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of. Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311633/MOHRD/MP 9.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking copies of rules that lay down the powers and duties of the governing body of IGIPESS; minutes of the governing body who promoted the employees of the Institute within one and half years of their appointment to the Institute; copy of rule that state that the promotion of an employee of the Institute can only be done after three years of appointment/promotion; whether governing body had not followed these rules then provide the name of the employee to whom these exemption had been vetted out to and the reason of the governing body for providing such exemption; rules under which the exemption by the governing body had been taken etc. through seven points.
9.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 provided copies of rules that lay down the powers and duties of the governing body and informed the appellant that as per records recently handed over, several GB Agenda and Minutes were missing. Further, the promotion rules were available on the University website www.du.ac.in and informed the appellant that powers and duties of governing bodies already been supplied. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
89.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds that unsatisfactory information having been provided by the CPIO alleging gross irregularities were committed in the working and promotion of various officials of IGIPESS and the CPIO also replied after a lapse of more than 30 days. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal filed before him.
9.4 The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the CPIO had responded to the appellant based on available records within the stipulated period.
9.5 The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided information as available with the respondent authority and upholds the decision of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311634/MOHRD/MP 10.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking educational qualification required for the appointment to the position of Principal of IGIPESS; copies of documents certificate with regard to the qualification and eligibility of Dr. D. Shaw as Principal; copy of minutes of the appointment of Dr. D. Shaw by the governing body and search committee; copies of letters received from Delhi University for the appointment of Dr. D. Shaw as officiating Principal; copies of document that shows that M.P. Ed was equivalent to M. Sc physical education; copy of extension letter extending the tenure of Dr. D. Shaw by six months; copy of approval of extension to Dr. D. Shaw etc. through nine points.
10.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 informed the appellant that qualification for appointment of Principal was available on the website du.ac.in; the educational qualification certificate of Dr. Shaw was denied being third party information and informed the appellant that Dr. D. Shaw was appointed as officiating principal of IGIPESS on the basis of report of search committee appointed by the Governing Body of IGIPESS and provided copies of letters received from Delhi University for appointment of Dr. D. Show and information relating to equivalence of degrees; copy of extension letter extending the tenure of Dr. D. Shaw and approval of extension to Dr. D. Shaw. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
10.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds that unsatisfactory information having been provided by the CPIO stating that gross irregularities had been committed in the appointment of Officiating Principal of IGIPESS and the CPIO also replied after a lapse of more than 30 days. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal filed before him.
910.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided the educational qualification required for the appointment to the post of Principal, IGIPESS and sent a point-wise reply to the appellant based on available records.
10.5 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and observes that the CPIO had appropriately point-wise responded and provided copies of relevant documents as sought by the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311635/MOHRD/MP 11.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking educational qualification and experience required for the appointment as a Lecturer of English in IGIPESS; was NET qualification necessary for non Ph. D holder to be appointed at Lecturer; educational qualification and experience of Dr. Sanjeev Kaushal at the time of his appointment; copy of all documents providing for the appointment with the appointment date of Dr. Sanjeev Kaushal to the post of Lecturer; copy of advertisement carrying out the position of lecturer on which Dr. Kaushal was appointed; the documents that prove that all requisite procedure and policies were followed for a free and fair manner of appointment of Dr. Kaushal etc. through nineteen points.
11.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 provided information on eligibility criteria for appointment of Lecturer and denied copies of educational qualification of Dr. Kaushal being third party information; provided copy of advertisement and copy of constitution of selection body to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
11.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds that unsatisfactory information having been provided by the CPIO stating that gross irregularities had been committed in the appointment of certain officials in IGIPESS and the CPIO also replied after a lapse of more than 30 days. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal filed before him.
11.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided copy of advertisement for the post of Lecturer, which contained all the eligibility criteria required for the post and denied copy of educational certificate submitted by Dr. Sanjeev Kaushal who was appointed as Lecturer being third party information. They further added that the CPIO had responded to the appellant within the stipulated period.
11.5. The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided information as per available records to the appellant within stipulated period. The copies of educational qualification in respect of Dr. Sanjeev Kaushal exempt from disclosure being third party information under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The 10 Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/IGPES/A/2017/311636/MOHRD/MP 12.1. The appellant, Shri G. Mohammad submitted RTI application dated 24.05.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences (IGIPESS), New Delhi seeking information about the appointment of Dr. Rajbir Singh to the post of Lecturer; whether Dr. Rajbir Singh appointed on temporary basis initially; copies of all the documents along with date of his appointment; copy of advertisement carrying out the position of lecturer on which Dr. Rajbir Singh was appointed on temporary basis; whether requisite procedure and policies were followed for a free and fair selection; details of the selection committee; synopsis of all candidates who appeared for the position of lecturer; detailed report of the selection committee that recommended the appointment; etc. through twenty five points.
12.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2016 informed the appellant that Dr. Rajbir Singh was appointed to the post of Lecturer initially on temporary basis, provided copy of the advertisement which contained the eligibility criteria to the post of Lecturer, provided copy of the constitution of the Selection Committee to the post of Lecturer and denied copies of education qualification in respect of Dr. Rajbir Singh being third party information. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.07.2016 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
12.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.10.2016 on the grounds that unsatisfactory information having been provided by the CPIO stating that gross irregularities had been committed in the appointment of certain officials in IGIPESS and the CPIO also replied after a lapse of more than 30 days. The FAA did not adjudicate on the appeal filed before him.
12.4 The respondents stated that the CPIO had sent a point-wise reply and provided information as available to the appellant within the stipulated period.
12.5 The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided disclosable information under the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant within the stipulated period to the appellant and appropriately responded to the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
13. After the hearing of individual cases was concluded, respondents stated that the appellant had sought information relating to recruitment of academic and non-academic staff members of IGIPESS and most of the queries raised by him in his 12 RTI applications were repetitive. They added that the CPIO had responded to all the twelve RTI applications within stipulated period as mandated under the RTI Act, 2005 on receipt of photocopying charges from the appellant. The FAA vide letter No. IPE/2015/RTI/815 dated 30.08.2016 requested the appellant to visit the Institute on 11 07.09.2016 so that he could inspect the documents related to his 12 RTI applications, but the appellant did not avail of the opportunity provided by the FAA for inspection of relevant records. The appellant was again requested by the FAA vide letter dated 20.10.2016 to inspect the documents related to his RTI applications on 03.11.2016 but he did not turn up. Despite this fact, the appellant had deliberately concealed the material fact from the CIC that he had not been invited for inspection of documents related to the RTI applications on 07.09.2016.
14. Before parting with the aforementioned appeals filed by the appellant, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought voluminous information relating to recruitments made by the IGIPESS on various posts i.e. academic and non-academic staff. The Commission further observes that the appellant had mostly sought education and qualification certificates of employees of IGIPESS which could not have been provided to him in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, being personal information of third party. Moreover, the appellant did not establish that any larger public interest was involved in the matter to the satisfaction of the Commission. The decision of this Commission in the case of Shrimajhar Imam Vs. Department of Posts (Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001851/5872), decision dated 29.08.2014, is also referred to:
"It is fairly obvious that the educational qualification certificates & other documents of an employee are in the nature of personal information about a third party. The employee might have filed these documents before the appointing authority for the purpose of seeking employment, but that is not reason enough for this information to be brought in to the public domain to which anybody could have access. The appellant has not demonstrated any larger public purpose which the disclosure of this information would serve."
It appears to the Commission that by filing such an extensive number of RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals, the appellant is only creating difficulties in the smooth and efficient working of the public authority. The appellant is, therefore, advised to use the rights available to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility, in future, so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous RTI applications and impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority. In fact, the objective of the cherished right given under the RTI Act, 2005 is to usher transparency and accountability and at the same time enable the public authority to judiciously use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that:
"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular 12 duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
In view of the above, the Commission holds that the CPIO has appropriately responded in the matter and no further intervention is called for on its part. All the appeals are, hereby, disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar.
Shri G. Mohammad, The Central Public Information Officer,
D-5, Flat A-4, Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical
Pariyavaran Complex, Education & Sports Sciences,
IGNOU Road, B-Block, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110030. New Delhi-110018.
The First Appellate Authority,
Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical
Education & Sports Sciences,
B-Block, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110018.
13