Central Information Commission
Shailendra Kumar Dayal vs National Zoological Park, New Delhi on 7 October, 2022
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/NZOOP/A/2022/140277
Shailendra Kumar Dayal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Zoological Park,
RTI Cell, Mathura Road,
New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/10/2022
Date of Decision : 04/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 17/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 12/06/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2022 seeking the following information:
(1) Name of the post on which Sh. Saurabh Vasnishtha was initially engaged in National Zoological Park. New Delhi on contract basis and the date since when engaged.1
(2) Name and address of the firm through. which Shri Saurabh Vashishtha was engaged on contract basis.
(3) Copy at the advertisement against which Shri Saurabh Vashishtha had applied for the post of Zoo Ranger in National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
(4) Copies of all the certificates submitted by Shri Saurabh Vasnishtha appointment to the post of Zoo Ranger in National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
(5) Copies of Recruitment Rules (both English & Hindi) for the posts of Zoo Ranger and Range Officer or circle officer in National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
(6) Copy of the dress-code of uniform prescribed for various categories employees of National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
The CPIO/Curator E pointwise replied to the appellant on 17.05.2022 as under:-
Sl. No. Question Answer 1 Name of the post on which Sh. Saurabh NA
Vasnishtha was initially engaged in National Zoological Park. New Delhi on contract basis and the date since when engaged.
2 Name and address of the firm through. NA which Shri Saurabh Vashishtha was engaged on contract basis.
3 Copy at the advertisement against which NA Shri Saurabh Vashishtha had applied for the post of Zoo Ranger in National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
4 Copies of all the certificates submitted by Personal Information as Shri Saurabh Vasnishtha appointment to the per Supreme Court post of Zoo Ranger in National Zoological Judgement. Park, New Delhi.
5 Copies of Recruitment Rules (both English & Enclosed RR for Zoo Hindi) for the posts of Zoo Ranger and Ranger rest is not Range Officer or circle officer in National available. Zoological Park, New Delhi.
6 Copy of the dress-code of uniform prescribed Not available.
for various categories employees of National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
2Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.06.2022. In response to First Appeal, Joint Director/CPIO replied on 20.07.2022 as under:
Sl. No. Question Answer 1 Name of the post on which Sh. Saurabh Education Assistant
Vasnishtha was initially engaged in National Zoological Park. New Delhi on contract basis and the date since when engaged.
2 Name and address of the firm through. D A Digital web word which Shri Saurabh Vashishtha was engaged on contract basis.
3 Copy at the advertisement against which Not available in NZP Shri Saurabh Vashishtha had applied for the post of Zoo Ranger in National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
4 Copies of all the certificates submitted by Personal Information as Shri Saurabh Vasnishtha appointment to the per Supreme Court post of Zoo Ranger in National Zoological Judgement. Park, New Delhi.
5 Copies of Recruitment Rules (both English & Enclosed RR for Zoo Hindi) for the posts of Zoo Ranger and Ranger rest is not Range Officer or circle officer in National available. Zoological Park, New Delhi.
6 Copy of the dress-code of uniform prescribed Enclosed.
for various categories employees of National Zoological Park, New Delhi.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Deepika Tiwari through intra-video conference. Respondent: Anamika, JD & CPIO along with Shagufta present through intra-video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that since the Appellant had an exigency, the case may be rescheduled for hearing.3
The Commission rejected the request of the Rep. of the Appellant as no prior intimation for the adjournment was received and no tenable cause was stated for the same.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was provided with the available information and whatever minor details were left out, the same has been provided vide a revised reply provided to the Appellant on 30.09.2022.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application on points 1-4 pertained to the appointment of a third party and disclosure of the same stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(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, the attention of the Appellant is further 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. 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 4 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..."
Nonetheless, the reply of the CPIO provides for the requisite information including that of the third party leaving no further scope of any action in the matter. However, the CPIO is advised to follow the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act before parting with any personal information of the third parties in the future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु&)
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा(णत स)या*पत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
5