Central Information Commission
Dr Kamal Chandra Tiwari vs Union Public Service Commission on 26 March, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000657/SS
Dated: 26.3.2014
Name of the Appellant: Shri Kamal Chandra Tiwari
Name of the Public Authority: U.P.S.C
Date of Hearing: 6.3.2014
ORDER
1. The appellant was present for the hearing. The respondent was represented by Shri Radhe Shyam (DS).
2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.1.2013 seeking information on (6) points in relation to interview proceeding for the post of Professor, Political Science, National Defence Academy, Pune conducted at U.P.S.C Delhi on 10.12.2012. The CPIO provided a point wise reply to the appellant vide reply dated 1.3.2013. Thereafter, the appellant filed first appeal dated 5.3.2013 which was disposed off vide order of the first appellate authority dated 1.4.2013.
3. The appellant has raised certain points during the hearing which are being considered point-wise. The appellant refers to point no. (2) (b) of his RTI application wherein he sought details regarding relaxation and concession provided to physically handicapped candidate as per UPSC/DoPT/Government rule. The CPIO states in his reply that recruitment is made by UPSC on merit keeping in view the category-wise vacancies reported by Ministry/Department concerned, whether the post is reserved for PH or PH suitable is also indicated by the concerned Ministry/Department. The Commission directs that point no. (2) (b) of the RTI application shall be transferred to the DoPT under section 6 (3) as the appellant has sought to know the concerned government rules on this point.
The appellant further presses for information at point no. 2 (e) wherein he sought to know the efforts made by UPSC to select PH member in selection committee and correspondence made by UPSC on this subject matter. The CPIO states in his reply "not applicable". The appellant states during the hearing that he seeks to know if there is any provision for selecting a PH member in the selection committee. The CPIO is directed to give a categorical reply to the appellant whether there is any such policy in place or not for physically handicapped member in the selection committee.
With regards to point no. 4 (b) raised by the appellant, the attested copies of documents regarding disposal of his complaint dated 21.12.2012 along with note-sheets shall be provided to the appellant after severance of names of the officers under section 10 of the RTI Act.
The appellant has further pressed for information at point no. (1)
(d) and (6) of his RTI application. The query and the reply of the CPIO is being reproduced as under:
Ques. (1) (d) : Please provide me an attested copy of UGC-API score sheet (as supplied by UPSC) of Dr J Meher and Dr SS Mishra, submitted at UPSC, New Delhi and countersigned by NDA officials, as it was accepted for grading process in said UPSC Interview.
CPIO's reply: The candidates give their personal details to the Commission in a fiduciary relationship. Personal information of the candidates held in a fiduciary capacity is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, furnishing information of these details to another person is not likely to serve any public interest or activity and hence such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Ques. (6): Please provide me Academic & Professional & Experience detail or Resume of member of UPSC Interview Board for the selection of Professor post dated 10.12.2012. Please provide me certified copy regarding aforesaid matter.
c) Was any member from OBC community in aforesaid Selection Committee? If yes please provide me their name.
d) Was any member belonging to Orissa state, in the aforesaid Selection Committee? If yes please provide me their names.
CPIO's reply: The identities of the members of the Interview Board in UPSC cannot be disclosed as this is exempted under section 8 (1) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The disclosure of identities of Experts (Member of the Selection Committee) is also exempted vide C.I.C decision no. 450/IC(A)/2006 dt. 15th Dec, 2006 in the matter of Rajnish Singh Choudhary Vs UPSC. The Supreme Court of India vide its judgement dated 13the December, 2012 has also exempted the disclosure of the identities of Experts (Members of the Selection Committees) in Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP( C) No. 20217 of 2011 in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission versus Shri Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr.
4. The respondent has also brought on record judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Public Service Commission Vs Gourhari Kamila (SLP (C ) No. 16870 of 2012) dated 16.8.2013 has held as under:
"By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgement, we hold that the CIC committed a serious illegality by directing the Commission to disclose the information sought by the respondent at point no. 4 and 5 and the High Court committed an error by approving his order.
We may add that neither the CIC nor the High Court came to the conclusion that disclosure of the information relating to other candidates was necessary in larger public interest. Therefore, the present case is not covered by the exception carved out in section 8 (1) (e) of the Act."
In the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court one of the subject matter in dispute was the copies of experience certificates of all the candidates called for interview in relation to a selection process who have claimed the experience in the relevant field as per records available.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission Vs Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (SLP ( C) No. 20217 of 2011) vide judgement dated 13.12.2012 has held as under:
"30. The above reasoning of the Bench squarely applies to the present case as well. The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the interview board to harm and , on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose."
6. On perusal of the said decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commission is of the view that the information sought at point no. (1)(d) and (6) of the RTI application cannot be disclosed under the provisions of section 8 (1)
(e) and 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. The documents like experience certificate, score sheet filed by the candidates in relation to the interview cannot be disclosed as it would amount to disclosure of the information relating to other candidates filed in fiduciary capacity. The name of the interview board members also cannot be disclosed as it would affect safety of the members and exempted under section 8 (1) (g).
The direction of the Commission shall be complied within ten days from the receipt of this order. The direction for transfer of the RTI application under section 6 (3) to be complied within five days from receipt of this order.
Sushma Singh Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(DC Singh) Deputy Registrar Name & Address of Parties:
1. Appellant:
Dr. Kamal Chand Tiwari, 104 A, Kumar Pratik, Anandnagar, Near PMC Fire Brigade, Sun City Road, Pune - 411051
2. CPIO & Dy. Secretary, Shri Arun Gaur, Union Public Service Commission (NR), Dholpur House, Shahjhan Road, New Delhi - 110069
3. Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari, 104 A, Kumar Pratik, Anandnagar, Near PMC Fire Brigade, Sun City Road, Pune- 411051 .