Central Information Commission
Leena Joseph vs Shree Chitra Triunal Institute For ... on 17 November, 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/SCTMS/A/2021/641888
In the matter of
Ms. Leena Joseph ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for
Medical Sciences & Technology (SCTIMST),
Trivandrum, Medical College Campus,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011, Kerala
...Respondent
Details of RTI application, CPIO reply, FA and FAA Order against which third party has filed the second appeal RTI application filed on : 19/04/2021 CPIO replied on : 05/05/2021 First appeal filed on : 18/05/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 11/06/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 09/09/2021 Date of Hearing : 16/11/2022 Date of Decision : 16/11/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Dr Maya Nandkumar, representative of the CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
I. Background:
1.1 Mr. Arun Anirudhan vide his RTI application dated 19/04/2021 had sought the following information pertaining to Ms. Leena Joseph (hereinafter referred to as third party) with regard to her promotion to the post Engineer- F :1
(i). Provide a copy of FCP (Flexible Complementing Scheme for Promotion) application along with supporting documents.
(ii). Provide the marks given by the internal screening committee.
(iii). Provide a copy of the ACR.
(iv). Marks given by the Interview Board (SSSC).
1.2 CPIO vide his reply dated 05/05/2021 denied the information sought by Mr. Arun under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
1.3. Mr. Arun filed first appeal dated 18/05/2021 against the reply of the CPIO.
1.4 FAA vide his Order dated 11/06/2021 issued the following directions:
(a) There is prima facie, larger public interest involved and hence the sought for information to be considered favourably for disclosure by the CPIO.
(b) Third party is also entitled to appeal against the disclosure to the Central Information Commission, within the statutory time period.
II. Relief sought by the third party, namely Ms. Leena Joseph 2.1 Not to disclose her personal information as stated in points (i) to (iv) above.
2.2 To protect her rights for natural justice by safeguarding unwarranted invasion on her privacy under Sec.8 (1)(j), read with Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the order of the FAA as without providing any opportunity of hearing to her, the FAA had ordered to disclose her personal information to a third party and the information sought is purely her personal information and any disclosure may adversely affect her professional career. In her written submissions, she has also placed reliance upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC & Ors.
The representative of the CPIO while referring to the written submissions filed by the CPIO on 09.11.2022 submitted that there is no inconsistency between the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order as the FAA while considering that there was larger public interest in the matter ordered for disclosure of the information and the appellant was also given due opportunity to give her consent or to deny the same. She also submitted that till date the information has not been released to the person who originally filed the RTI application.2
Observations:
Considering the facts of the case, it is noted that the instant appeal has been filed by a third party who is in disagreement with the order of the FAA ordering disclosure of the information related to her. The background of the matter is that the RTI applicant and the appellant, both have appeared for a promotion interview (FCP Flexible Complementing Promotion) and what appears is that the appellant was promoted and therefore the RTI applicant filed the RTI application seeking some details of the candidate who was selected for the promotion.
What is noted is that initially the information was denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, however, the FAA reviewed the matter on the basis of the contentions raised by the RTI applicant that the appellant had failed to mention the information related to her higher degree on the SCTIMST website and on the National Institutional Ranking Framework website. The RTI applicant had also stated that the appellant's higher educational degree is not approved by UGC. Taking into consideration these two factors, the FAA ordered disclosure of the information subject to the CPIO following the procedure laid down u/s 11 of the RTI Act and also giving an opportunity to the appellant to file an appeal if she is not satisfied with the order of the FAA. The appellant in her second appeal had stated that acquiring any higher qualification was not mandatory in applying for FCP and as a working employee, it adds value to the credentials of the FCP applicants. She has also stated that her higher qualification has already been recorded in the service book with the approval of the competent authority. There was no specific requirement of UGC approval laid down by the SCTIMST for the purpose of FCP and therefore there was no public interest in ordering disclosure of her personal information to the RTI applicant.
She had vehemently stressed on the fact that there was no requirement of updation of additional qualification on the official website or NIRF for applying for FCP. She had also informed that the details of her higher education are already available with the RTI applicant.
During the hearing, it was enquired from the representative of the CPIO as to whether there was any requirement on the part of the employees who had applied for FCP to update the details of their higher education on the website or not as the FAA had ordered disclosure of the information based on the fact that the appellant had failed to update these details on the official website and the degree was not approved by UGC, to which the CPIO submitted that there was no such requirement to upload these details on the website. Having said so, what is noted by the Commission is that rather than any public interest, the RTI applicant was aggrieved with the fact that instead of him, his 3 colleague i.e. the appellant was promoted and therefore the filing of the RTI application was done for a private interest rather than any public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v.
Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus: "Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows: Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."4
Furthermore, the flaw in the FAA's order was that he had a duty to seek comments/ allow personal hearing to both the parties, i.e. the RTI applicant and the appellant, before passing any final order rather than passing a final order and giving an opportunity of appeal to the third party. The Commission therefore concludes that the information sought on part A qualifies to be personal information of a third party and cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, there is no involvement of any public interest in the matter which outweighs the protection given u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Decision:
In view of the above, since there is no larger public interest involved in the matter, the FAA's order is set aside and the CPIO is directed not to disclose any information related to Leena Joseph to the RTI applicant i.e. Arun Anirudhan.
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
5