Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Manisha Garg vs Central University Of Punjab on 18 March, 2025

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CUOPJ/A/2024/109667

 Manisha Garg                                                    ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO:
 Central University of Punjab,                              ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Bathinda, Punjab

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 18.09.2023                FA      : 02.11.2023            SA     : 17.03.2024

 CPIO : 20.10.2023               FAO : 22.12.2023                Hearing : 05.03.2025


Date of Decision: 18.03.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1) Certified copy of application forms along-with supporting documents, in respect of all 12 candidates, to whom the Selection Committee has called for interview, be supplied.

2) Please specifically inform the API score(s) of all 12 candidates, to whom the Selection Committee has called for the interview, be intimated.

3) Please provide certified/ attested copies of calculation of API Score(s) of all 12 candidates, to whom the Selection Committee has called for the interview, be intimated.

4) Certified/ attested copies of evaluation/assessment sheet in respect of all 12 candidates, to whom the Selection Committee has called for interview for the aforesaid post, as Prepared by Members/ Assessing Agency/ Subject Experts/ Interviewers of the Selection Committee, be supplied.

5) Name, designation & place of Posting of each & every Member/Subject Experts/ Outside Member/ Outside expert/Chairman/Chairperson etc. who remained Part of the Selection Committee for the aforesaid post, be informed.

..., etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

िबंदु सं. 1: सूचना तृतीय प सूचना है , िजस आर.टी.आई. अिधिनयम, 2005 के अनु े द 8 (1) (ङ) और 8 (1) (ञ) के अंतगत कटन से छूट ा है ।

िबंदु सं. 2: उपल सूचना के िलए प रिश -1 दे ख िबंदु सं. 3: उपल सूचना के िलए प रिश -1 दे ख िबंदु सं. 4: उपल सूचना के िलए प रिश -2 दे ख िबंदु सं. 5: यह गोपनीय एवं तृतीय प सूचना है , िजसे आर.टी.आई. अिधिनयम, 2005 के अनु े द 8 (1) (ङ), 8 (1) (छ) और 8 (1) (ञ) के अंतगत कटन से छूट ा है ।

etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.11.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.12.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.03.2024.

5. The appellant's representative, Mr. Ashish and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Robin Jindal, CPIO, Mr. Bhupender Sharma, FAA and Dr, Puneet, Head of Department (Law) attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that information has not been provided by the CPIO on point nos. 1, 3, and 5, however, on point no. 4 it is partially provided. He further submitted that the information sought on the above said points pertain to the candidates called for interview, calculation of API scores of all the candidates etc.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a suitable reply on point nos. 2 to 4, 6 to 8 have been furnished to the appellant along with the relevant enclosures vide letter 20.10.2023. He further submitted that the information sought on point no. 1 and 5 pertained to the third-parties, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (d), (g) & (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. Further, the remaining enclosures w.r.t point no. 9 has also been provided during the inspection. A written submission dated 22.02.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided all available record/documents w.r.t point nos. 2 to 4, 6 to 9 to the appellant vide letter dated 20.10.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that on point no. 1 and 5, the appellant has sought for the personal information of third parties, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1) (d), (g) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, the right exemption clauses should have been 8(1) (g) & (j). In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. Page 3 of 5 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 & amp; 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..."

9. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 18.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Page 4 of 5 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Central University of Punjab, VPO: Ghudda, District - Bathinda, Punjab - 151401

2. Manisha Garg Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)