Central Information Commission
Dr.Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs Icar on 2 March, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802, 901804,
901807, 901809, 901811, 901812,
901813 & 901830
Dated: 02.03.2012
Name of Appellant : Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
Name of Respondent : Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board
Date of Hearing : 27.02.2012
ORDER
The appellant Dr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta has filed eight appeals each dated 20.5.2011 against the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ACRB), New Delhi for not providing information to him in reply to his eight RTI-applications. The matter came up for hearing on 27.02.2012. The appellant was present and the respondent were represented by Shri N.S. Randhawa, Secretary/FAA, Shri Suresh Pal, CPIO, Shri Vinod Kumar, CPIO and Ms. Rita Ghoshal, Section Officer.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802 2.1 The appellant had filed an RTI-application dated 7.3.2011 seeking information on the following six queries pertaining to advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 231, 232, 233, 234, 235 and 236 - "(1) Please provide me the detailed score (details of the marks awarded) w.r.t. each of the candidate for the above mentioned posts. The details must contain the marks awarded for educational qualifications, experience, distinguished service, achievements, interview and each of the other attributes at each of the stage of recruitment (including screening); (2) Please provide me the names and complete address of each of the candidate whose application ahs been rejected at screening stage for the above mentioned post. Also provide me the 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802, 901804,901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 and 901830 detailed reasons for rejection of application for each of these candidates; (3) Please provide me the list of candidates (or the documents containing these details) with name and complete address who has applied for any of the above mentioned posts. This information be provided for all the candidates (whether application rejected or not); (4) Please provide me the list of candidates (or the documents containing these details) with name and complete address who has been issued interview letters for above mentioned posts; (5) Please provide me the names and designation of the officers who have checked the application forms of candidates for fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the above mentioned post; and (6) Please provide me the certified copy of the PART B of the application form submitted by each of the selected candidate for the above posts."
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901804 2.2 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated 4.3.2011 seeking reply to identical six queries aforementioned pertaining to the advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901807 2.3 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated 8.3.2011 seeking reply to identical six queries aforementioned pertaining to the advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 and 242.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901809 2.4 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated 9.3.2011 seeking reply to identical six queries aforementioned pertaining to the advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 243, 244, 245, 246, 247 and 248.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901811 2.5 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated 7.3.2011 seeking reply to identical six queries aforementioned pertaining to the advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 and 217.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901812 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802, 901804,901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 and 901830 2.6 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated 6.3.2011 seeking reply to identical six queries aforementioned pertaining to the advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 209.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901813 2.7 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated 5.3.2011 seeking reply to identical six queries aforementioned pertaining to the advertisement No. 04/2010 published by ASRB for the posts at Item No. 181, 182, 183, 184, 185 and 186.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901830 2.8 The appellant has filed an RTI-application dated nil seeking information on three queries and inspection of all the records (both electronic and paper form) related to selections carried out by ASRB for its advertisement No. 04/2010.
3. The CPIO vide his letter No. 1(18)/2011-Rectt.-II dated 5.4.2011 informed the appellant that the information sought by him was so voluminous covering practically the entire gamut of functioning of the Board and it would definitely cause a great deal of pressure on the day to day work of the Board. The appellant was, therefore, requested to send a fresh request with specific information. However, the CPIO informed the appellant that information related to various working aspects of ASRB is already available on the ASRB website.
4. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal before the FAA on 15.4.2011. The FAA vide his order No. 1(4)/2011-Rectt.-II dated 12.5.2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the information sought was too general and vast in extent covering, almost the entire working of the ASRB, therefore, the appellant was requested to specify the same so that the CPIO could supply the information immediately.
5. During the hearing the appellant submits that the information sought for by him is not voluminous. The information is readily available and is not to be compiled, therefore, the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 are not attracted. Moreover, the information sought by him is not exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802,901804,901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 and 901830
6. After hearing the submissions of the parties the Commission observes that the appellant, through the 8 RTI-requests filed by him simultaneously is seeking information on the entire selection process of the respondent public authority, pertaining to recruitment to various posts advertised through Advertisement No. 04/2010. The Commission is of the view that disclosure of this information will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 9.8.2011 in the case of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya & others in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 held that "The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all the sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 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 duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not be lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." In view of this the Commission is of the opinion that the information 5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802, 901804,901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 and 901830 sought for by the appellant is voluminous and so as to disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
7. The matter, therefore, is remitted back to the FAA with the direction to provide an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of the relevant documents/files for one day, on a mutually convenient date and time within three weeks of receipt of this order. After the inspection and identification of documents required by the appellant, the FAA would decide on the reasonability of the number of documents requested by the appellant and provide disclosable information under the provisions of the RTI Act, on payment of requisite fees.
The matter is disposed of with the above directions.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta, 1778, Sector-14, Hissar (Haryana) The CPIO, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-1, Pusa, New Delhi-110012.
The First Appellate Authority, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-1, Pusa, New Delhi-110012.6 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901802,
901804,901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 and 901830