Central Information Commission
Dr G Saikumar vs Agricultural Scientists Recruitment ... on 3 October, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/AGSRB/A/2023/601569
Dr G Saikumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
AGRICULTURE SCIENTISTS
RECRUITMENT BOARD, RTI CELL,
KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN-I,
PUSA, NEW DELHI- 110012. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/09/2023
Date of Decision : 22/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2022
CPIO replied on : 21/11/2022
First appeal filed on : 22/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 05/12/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/01/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2022 seeking the following information:1
"The applicant was a candidate in the interviews conducted on 27th and 28th Oct 2022, for the candidates shortlisted for the positions of Joint Director Research, ICAR-IVRI (Item No. 87, Advt. No. 01/2001) and Joint Director CADRAD, ICAR-IVRI (Item No. 85, Advt. No. 01/2001).
The concerned CPIO of ASRB may please provide the following information:
1. Certified copies of score card aggregate marks and interview marks of the candidates who appeared for the interview of JD (Research), ICAR-IVRI on 27th Oct 2022.
2. Certified copies of score card aggregate marks and interview marks of the candidates who appeared for the interview of JD (Academic), ICAR-IVRI on 27th Oct 2022.
3. Certified copies of score card aggregate marks and interview marks of the candidates who appeared for the interview of JD (CADRAD), ICAR-IVRI on 28th Oct 2022.
4. Name of the candidate(s) recommended by the ASRB to ICAR for the position of JD (Research), ICAR-IVRI after conducting the interview.
5. Name of the candidate(s) recommended by the ASRB to ICAR for the position of JD (Academic), ICAR-IVRI after conducting the interview.
6. Name of the candidate(s) recommended by the ASRB to ICAR for the position of JD (CADRAD), ICAR-IVRI after conducting the interview."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 21.11.2022 stating as under:
"The process of filing up of the posts under Advt. No.01/2021 is not yet completed, therefore, the information sought by the applicant cannot be provided under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 05.12.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Kamal Kumar, CPIO present in person.
The written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He requested the Commission to intervene and direct the Respondent to furnish complete information as per his RTI application.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and submitted that at the time of giving reply to the RTI application, the process of selection was not completed. Therefore, information was not provided to him.
On query from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that now the process for selection is completed.
Decision:
The Commission, however, observes that providing information about the marks obtained by the candidate or cut-off marks would enhance transparency in the examination and would also increase the credibility of the respondent organization.
The Commission further observes that the information in respect of aggregate marks and interview marks of other candidates is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 3 xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide to the Appellant his own marks (as per his RTI application) and cut-off marks to the Appellant free of cost through speed/registered post within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
4The Commission further observes that the Respondent wrongly invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in denying the information. In view of this, the Commission directs the Respondent to be careful in future and ensure that appropriate exemption clause should be invoked while denying the information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5