Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 12 November, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/117611
In the matter of:
Ajay Kumar
... Appellant
VS
1.CPIO/ RPFC (Exam)
Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO)
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
2. PIO
EdCIL (India) Ltd.,
EdCIL House, 18A Sector 16A, Noida - 201 301
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 14/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 01/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 23/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2019 Second Appeal dated : 11/04/2019 Date of Hearing : 11/11/2020 Date of Decision : 11/11/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri Navin Sagwan, RPFC II, EPFO and CPIO, Sri Anup, Section Officer; Shri S Mathur, DGM HR & Admin PIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of EO/AO held on 13th and 14th November, 2017:1
1. Details of successful candidates of Gujarat Region to whom marks have been awarded for the question mentioned below.
2. Details of all candidates of Gujarat Region to whom marks have been awarded for the question mentioned below.
{(Section: Numerical ability and Test of Reasoning in respect of question ID: 3675232411.) Ashok sets out for a jog facing East; he jogs a distance of 3km, and then turns right, jogs a distance of 2 km. Then he turns left and covers a distance of 3km; he again turns left and runs a distance of 5km. Then turning left he walks down the next 6km and finally stops. How far is Ashok from his home?} Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply. He requested for providing him complete information.
The CPIO EPFO reiterated the written submissions dated 03.11.2020 in which he had submitted that the RTI application was transferred to EdCIL and thereafter EdCIL had transferred the RTI application to CPIO (Exam) citing clause 15 of the agreement formalised between EPFO and EdCIL. Thereafter a detailed order dated 15.02.2019 had been passed wherein it was clearly mentioned that such information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005. He further submitted that indirectly the applicant had sought the answer sheets of other candidates. He further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 18.10.2019 where third party answer-sheets were held exempted u/s 8(1)(e) holding the examining body in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee.
The PIO EdCIL submitted that they conducted this examination on behalf of EPFO and the information with regard to the applicant was already addressed through the Objection Redressal Management system which is a specific procedure to receive objections regarding answer key. He further submitted that relevant data with regard to the examination in electronic form was handed over to the client as per procedure.2
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 01.01.2019 informed the appellant that the RTI application was transferred to EdCIL for necessary action as the matter pertains to them. The Commission observed that prima facie the appellant has sought for details of marks of third parties, which amounts to personal information and the same is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Having heard both the CPIOs the Commission arrived at a conclusion that the appellant had already exhausted the channel available for raising objections regarding answer key etc. However, he asked for certain information in this RTI which are not disclosable under the RTI Act. Moreover, he failed to demonstrate any larger public interest in this case.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3