Central Information Commission
Shri U.R.M. Raju vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 13 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01148 & 01156
Dated, the 13th March, 2009.
Appellant : Shri U.R.M. Raju
Respondents : Visakhapatnam Port Trust
These two second-appeals filed by Shri U.R.M. Raju (appellant) came up for hearing on 27.01.2009. Appellant was present in person, while respondents were represented by Shri T. Venu Gopal, Personnel Officer.
2. These two appeals are related to appellant's RTI-petitions, both dated 09.02.2008. These petitions were mostly about the disposal of appellant's grievance-petition filed before the head of the public authority relating to selection of Deputy CVO of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT). Appellant himself was an applicant for the post and he believed that the panel in which his name was included was wrongly annulled by the management of VPT. His queries in these two RTI-petitions read as follows:-
RTI-application in Appeal No.1148:
"1) Copies of Note file dealt on my grievance appeal Dt: 10.10.2006 on the selection of Dy. CVO.
2) Copies of letters sent to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, if any, in the subject matter of recruitment of DCVO by VPT and copies of replies received from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant.
3) Copies of correspondence with CBI, if any, in the above case
4) Copies of letter received from C.V.C. if any, and replies sent to CVC in the above case.
5) Reasons for not operating the post of Dy. CVO from 9-9-2006 from the selection list candidates
6) Reasons for not extending the panel beyond one year, in spite of my request
7) If the selection list is cancelled, then, a copy of the order to that effect.
8) The reasons for cancellation of selection list and the action taken on the concerned for the lapses AT-13032009-05.doc Page 1 of 5
9) Copy of the note file dealt in the above matter, from the date of selection (i.e. from 9.9.2006) to till the date of issue of the recent advertisement in January 2008."
RTI-application in Appeal No.1156:
"1) The date on which my grievance representation Dt: 20.03.2006 was forwarded to the Ministry.
2) A copy of the above forwarding letter.
3) Copy of the Note file processed on my grievance representation (i.e. from 20.3.2006 to the date of forwarding to the Ministry)
4) Copy of note file processed on my representation Dt: 5-9-2007, on which reply Dt: 17.10.2007 was given (Reference cited)
5) Copy of Note file processed during June 2007 on which orders are issued for giving Manager (OP) I/c to CMM as additional charge."
3. It is seen that a number of queries in the above lists relate to disclosure of reasons, explanations and so on. These are not liable to be answered as they go beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Such queries include those appearing at Sl.Nos.5, 6, 8 in Appeal No.1148.
4. It is directed that there shall be no disclosure obligation for the above items of query.
5. During the hearing, the respondents submitted that other items of the request made in these two appeals by the appellant relate to an ongoing process which has not yet reached conclusion. He further pointed out that appellant has been making all manner of complaints and allegations against the management for what he believes wrongful denial of the post of Deputy CVO to him. He has filed petitions before the CVC, the Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport and had also taken the matter to the High Court. CVC and the Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport have held that there was no merit in his allegations. Matter is still before the High Court. Respondents pointed out that they have no objection to disclosing the requested information to the appellant provided he waits till the conclusion of the ongoing selection process for the post of Deputy CVO in the VPT.
6. Appellant pointed out that it was wrong for the respondents to contend that the matter of the selection of the Deputy CVO and the information solicited by the appellant in his two RTI-applications was one and the same. According to the appellant, what he had sought in his RTI-applications was the matter related to the annulling of the panel prepared for the post of Deputy CVO and his own AT-13032009-05.doc Page 2 of 5 grievance against that decision. It has nothing to do with the present process about selection of the new Deputy CVO after the annulment of the earlier panel.
7. Respondents reported that these two matters were not entirely distinguishable and they were dealt with in the same file in a continuous manner. It was not possible to deal with the two separately at any given point of time. They, therefore, reiterated that the appellant should wait for the conclusion of the ongoing selection process for the CPIO to consider his request for the disclosure of the requested information.
8. Respondents also pointed out that a lot of information which the appellant has requested related to the correspondence which the Visakhapatnam Port Trust have had with other public authorities such as the CVC, the CBI, the Ministry of Shipping and even within the VPT. Most of these items of information cannot be disclosed unless the third-parties to which these relate are consulted under the provisions of the RTI Act. It is quite possible that the CVC, the CBI and the Ministry of Shipping would not be willing that the correspondence they have had with the public authority, viz. the VPT be shared with the appellant.
9. I wish to mention here that in the experience in this Commission, it has been found that employees of public authorities who failed to get selected for the posts they apply for, or do not get the promotion they hope for, or the transfer they seek, are the most prolific in using the provisions of the RTI Act to promote their interests. This applicant is no exception. During the hearing, he stated that the panel for the Deputy CVO was cancelled by the management of the VPT only in order to deny the appellant's rightful claim to hold that post. He openly stated that this was done due to corrupt motive on part of the decision-makers. He claims to have been told to pay a bribe, and on his refusal, the action to cancel the panel was allegedly taken in order to deprive him of, what he believes, to be his rightful claim to the post of Deputy CVO of VPT.
10. This petitioner believes that he was the best suited to hold the post of Deputy CVO-VPT and thus demanded that all information relating to his grievance-petition about annulling the panel for Deputy CVO of the VPT be disclosed to him so that he could pursue the legal course of action to defend his interests.
11. I found nothing new in these averments because these were the types of submissions which were frequently made by similarly placed employees of the public authorities who came in appeals before this Commission.
12. It was pointed out to the appellant that annulling of panels for selection posts was not an uncommon or unusual phenomenon and that the competent AT-13032009-05.doc Page 3 of 5 authority always enjoyed the power to take such actions. He was, however, not persuaded.
13. In consideration of the submissions of both parties, I find that there is justification in the respondents' submission that any disclosure of information at the present moment to the appellant about an ongoing selection process will have the effect of impairing that process and could compromise the fiduciary relationship the persons and the institutions involved in that process have with each other. It would be, therefore, improper to allow the divulging of information at this moment to the appellant about any aspect of the ongoing process.
14. There is another point which needs to be factored in. The actions of the respondents in this whole matter of the recruitment of Deputy CVO of VPT was contained in a confidential file within the scope of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states, "no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interest would suffer by this disclosure." It is the respondents' case that the file whose disclosure the appellant has sought not only was itself confidential, it contained a variety of communications received from other public authorities in confidence. Disclosure of this variety of information, even before the conclusion of the ongoing recruitment process, would irreparably harm the recruitment process by exposing it to intrusive actions by interested people and other handicaps. Confidentiality was, therefore, necessary to maintain the integrity of the process. An unmistakable public interest is served by keeping this recruitment confidential for the period when the process of recruitment was current.
15. Seen in the context of the RTI Act, Section 11(1) enjoins a public authority to consult third-parties regarding disclosing of any confidential information received from that third-party ⎯ which may include a public authority in terms of Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, which defines a "third-party". A given public authority, from which an information is sought, can be a third-party in the context of the information held by it, in the sense that that public authority is required to guard the confidentiality of the information, which it holds.
16. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act deal with confidentiality of the information entrusted to the charge of a public authority and the conditions in which such information can be disclosed. These two provisions are harmoniously consistent.
AT-13032009-05.doc Page 4 of 5
17. The sum-total of reading of these two Sections of the two Acts is that the imperatives of public interest may warrant holding a certain information ⎯ file, document, record, communication and so on ⎯ confidential and thus barred from disclosure. After a CPIO has initiated a process of third-party consultation ⎯ which may include in terms of Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, the very public authority from whom information is sought ⎯ he may factor in the decision of the public authority under Section 124 of the Evidence Act to keep an information confidential and thus undisclosed, in the decision CPIO makes about whether the information be divulged under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
18. In the present case, the respondents have treated the information as confidential in terms of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, during the currency of the recruitment process for the post of Deputy CVO, VPT for the reasons stated in para 14 of this order. This is sufficient reason to deny this information to the appellant under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
19. In the context of what has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondents have persuasively argued that there was public interest in holding this information confidential.
20. It is also apt to mention here that the various parts of information relating to any ongoing recruitment process, if allowed to be disclosed when that process is still current, will make impossible the working of public authorities such as UPSC, SSC, etc., which are entrusted with the task of mass recruitments. All recruitment processes ⎯ large as well as small ⎯ therefore need a certain amount of protection from complying with disclosure obligations during the currency of the process.
21. Accordingly, it is held that as long as the recruitment process for the post of Deputy CVO of VPT is current, respondents will have no obligation to disclose the requested information to the appellant. However, once the process is concluded, appellant may file an RTI-application for disclosure of the information. Respondents are directed to inform the appellant when the selection process for the Dy. CVO is completed.
22. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
23. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-13032009-05.doc Page 5 of 5