Central Information Commission
Dr Ritesh Kumar vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 25 January, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: -CIC/CMRID/A/2020/688733
In the matter of:
Ritesh Kumar
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR),
Barwa Road,
Dhanbad - 826001.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/06/2020 CPIO replied on : 31/07/2020 First appeal filed on : 01/08/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 25/08/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 11/10/2020 Date of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date of Decision : 24/01/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Pankaj Kr Mishra, Senior Principal Scientist & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide personal file details of all the members (All Scientist C level and below & All Technical Officers and Technical Assistant levels) present in the meeting held on 03/06/2020 which was conducted in the Committee Room for the two Research Groups (Rock Excavation Engineering and Rock Slope and Equipment Safety Group) at 3:00 pm onwards. Following information has been sought from the personal files:1
(a) A copy of the duly filled form that was submitted by each of the above-
mentioned member present in the meeting held on 03/06/2020 at the time of their joining CSIR-CIMFR.
(b) Copies of certificates of their educational qualifications starting from Matric (X) onwards till the qualification, on the basis of which they had joined CSIR- CIMFR.
(c) and other related information.
2. Provide copies of the advertisements in response to which the above- mentioned members attending the meeting held on 03/06/2020 had applied for their respective post and finally joined CSIR-CIMFR. Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information under sub-sections (e, g and
h) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the information was incorrectly denied to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on
03.08.2020. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 19.01.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the exemptions claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(g), (h) & (e) are not completely relevant as even if there was no investigation pending against the appellant, the information is still exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant had sought the certified copies of personal files, copy of application forms, educational qualifications etc of all the members who were present for the meeting held on 03.06.2020. All of this information purely constitutes personal information of third parties and since there is no larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission does not find any ground to lift the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It is pertinent to mention here that there are a number of decisions of the Commission itself where it was held that educational certificates, experience certificates, biodata etc. of other persons are personal information of the third parties. Moreover, in this context the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. 2 Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter. However, the CPIO is advised to use the proper exemption clause for denying any information in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3