Central Information Commission
Hardik Bharatbhai Mehta vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 5 June, 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/CCCAZ/A/2022/147448
Hardik Bharatbhai Mehta ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of Customs
(Prev.), Jamnagar, RTI Cell, Seema Shulk
Bhawan, Rajkot Jamnagar Highway,
Near Victoria Bridge, Jamnagar-361001,
Gujarat .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/06/2023
Date of Decision : 01/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 08/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 18/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 11/08/2022
Second Appeal dated : 28/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. Recruitment of Sea Men and Greesar by Custom Department of Jamnagar that is application were published on Dated 22-07-2021 for that swimming test was conducted as on dated 25-03-2022 and written test examination was held on dated 27-03-2022. To provide True copies of List given marks to me and other candidates.
2. To give detailed information about the Merit Process of this recruitment.
3. To provide true copies of the Merit List.
4. To provide recruitment marking procedure in detail.
5. To provide a detailed selection process with all true copies.
6. To provide with Answer Key and Answer Seat photocopy of mine i.e. applicant and other candidates with true copies."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 08.07.2022 stating as under:
"1. The written examination held on 27.03.2022 for the recruitment of Seeman, Shri Hardik Bharat Bhai Mehta obtained 65 marks out of 100 marks. Further, marks obtained by other candidates cannot be provided considering Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Recruitment Notification dated 22.07.2021 and instruction given in the admit card may he referred.
3. Merit List cannot be provided considering Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. Instructions given in the admit cord may be referred.
5. Recruitment Notification dated 22.07.2021 and instruction given in the admit card may be referred.
6. This information cannot be provided considering Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 11.08.2022, held as under:
"I have carefully gone through application dated 09th June, 2022 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 and the reply dated 08th July, 2022 issued vide OIO No. 11/JAM/DC/SIC/RTI/2022-23 by the CPIO, Customs (Prey.), HQ. Jamnagar and contention made in the appeal dated 18.07.2022, which is received in this office on 19.07.2022.
On going through the contents of the application dated 09th June, 2022 of Shri Hardik Bharatbhai Mehta, it is seen that, the applicant had sought information regarding recruitment of Marine Staff in 06 points. The CPIO had provided the information sought for by the applicant in six points vide OIO No. 11 /JAM/DC/SIC/RTI/2022-23 dated 08.07.2022 as detailed at part (2) above. In reply to the point no. 2, 4 & 5, the CPIO has stated that, the recruitment notification doted 22.07.2021 and instruction given in the admit card may be referred to.
Whereas, with respect to information sought by the applicant at the point no. 1, the CPIO had provided the applicant marks obtained by him in the written examination dated 27.03.2022, but denied marks obtained by the other candidates in the said written examination under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, with respect to information sought by the applicant vide point 3 & 6, the CPIO denied providing the information tinder Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
With respect to point (i) of the application dated 09.06.2022 as detailed at para (1) above , I find that, information denied by the CPIO in light of Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 , to provide marks obtained by the other candidates is appropriate, as the marks obtained by the other candidates are third party information and personal in nature and serves no public interest in large.
With respect to the reply of point no. 03 submitted by the CPIO that merit list cannot be provided considering Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and contention of the applicant in the present appeal, I find that, merit list of selected candidates is available on the official website of Customs (Prey.) Jamnagar. The link of the same is https://iamnagarcustoms.in/ In reply of point 6, the CPIO had stated that information cannot be provided in light of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and I find same to be appropriate as 3 the information will not serve larger public interest. In this regard, I rely upon the judgment of (1) Hon' ble Supreme Court in case of UPSC vs Angesh Kumar (2018)4 SCC (530), (2) the case of D.S. Meena v. North-western Railways, Appeal No. ICPB/A-3/CIC/2006 and (3) in case of Neeraj Kumar Singhal vs North West Railway, Jaipur, Appeal No. 11/53/2006/CIC thot the copy of evaluated answer- sheet need not be provided to the candidate."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of merit list of candidates by invoking Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Ishan Duggal, DCIT & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
In response to Appellant's contention, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission filed prior to hearing wherein he interalia ,stated as under -
"...the appellant was a candidate in respect of recruitment process for the post of Greaser' and Seaman' initiated vide Recruitment Notification P. No. 11/3102/11q/Estt/2021 dated 22.07.2021. He could not qualify in the selection process Hence. he filed RTI application dated 09.06.2022 (received an 10.06.2022) whereby he requested information pertaining to marks obtained in the swimming test written examination by all the candidates including himself, merit process of the recruitment, true copy of merit list, recruitment marking procedure. detailed selection process with true copies and answer key and answer sheet of the applicant (present appellant) and other candidates, in true copies.
The CPIO tide Order No. 11/JAM /CC/SIC/R11/2022.23 dated 08.07.2022 whereby the marks obtained by the appellant were given and information pertaining to marks obtained by other candidates was refused u/s 8(1)6l. As regards merit process and selection process. the CPIO advised the appellant to 4 refer the recruitment notification dated 22.07.2021 and instruction given in the admit card. The information pertaining to merit list. answer sheet and answer key was denied in light of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. As regards recruitment marking procedure, the appellant was advised to refer the admit card.
1. The allegation by the appellant that the 'as per au specimen form Na A not yarn not clear information and refused to give any information'. It is submitted the ground / evidence given by the appellant is ambiguous. The CPIO has provided point wise information / reply in response to the application. The information which could be disclosed was already disclosed. Other information i.e. marks obtained by other candidates, answer sheet, answer key etc. cannot be disclosed as the same personal information relating to other candidates and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In this regard. kind attention of Hectic Commission is drawn to the following case laws / decisions of Hon'ble Commission:
a. Shri Sanjay Verma Vs. UPSC: Hon'ble Commission observed that the information sought vide point No. 2 & S of the application relates to marks obtained by other candidates in the written examination. Thus, the information sought is personal information' related to a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
b. UPSC VsAngesh Kumar 2018 4 8CC (530)]: In this case, the petitioners- applicants were unsuccessful candidates in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010. They approached the High Court for a direction to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010. The information in the form of cut-off marks for every subject, scaling methodology, model answers and complete result of all candidates were also sought. Honble Supreme Court observed that 'Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, tie are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be 5 furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing: The petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
c. D.S. Meena Vs CPIO, North Western Railways(Appeal No. ICPB/A- 3/C1C/2006 - Order dated 10-02-2006) - Departmental examinations - When answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer papers stand in a fiduciary relationship with each other. Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both of the manner and method of evaluation. That is the reason why while mark sheets are made readily available as a matter of course, copies of the evaluated answer papers are not made available to the candidates - Section 8(1)(e) is applicable.
d. Neeraj Kumar Singhal Vs Sr. DGM North West Railway, Jaipur (Appeal:
No. 11/53/2006-CIC - Order dated 02-05-06) The applicant asked for copies of mark sheets and answer sheets of four candidates who were declared successful in the examination conducted for Traffic Casting Inspector - CPIO intimated that the information could not be supplied under Section 18(I)(d)(c) of the RTI Act and that the directions in this regard had been sought from the Railway Board - View reiterated by appellate authority-The Commission pursued the available records and concluded the integrity of examination system should not be compromised -Conduct of examinations and for identifying and short-listing the candidates in terms of technical competence right attitude, etc is a highly confidential activity - Therefore, answer-sheets should not be disclosed.
e. Siddharth Kumar Nim (CIC Decision no.:
CIC/CPC0I/A/2018/137114/02218): In this case, the appellant has requested Photocopies of marks obtained by all the candidates for the post of Director (FA) in written exam as well as in interview as per result declared and Photocopies of relevant note sheets of the file through which the result of Director (FA) was processed. The CPIO denied the information. Honble CIC upheld the decision of CPIO by holding that "the information related to marks obtained by other candidates other than the appellant is purely a third party information exempted u/s. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Anther, the contention of the CPIO is also in justified that it is their matter of policy that they do not upload the marks on their website. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPI0"6
f. Ms. Treesa Irish Vs. CPIO, Kerala Postal Circle, Trivandrum (Appeal No. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 - Order dated 06-02-2006) - Post woman unsuccessful in Departmental Examination -Case filed in CAT - Seeking answer-sheet of an internal examination conducted by postal department for promotion - CPIO rejected request stating that no public interest is involved and as permissible under the Postal Rules, she could apply for retotalling - Applicant seeking damages of Rs 5,000 in appeal - When answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer papers stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other - Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both of the manner and method of evaluation - Providing information will not serve any public interest u/a 8(1)0) of the RTI Act rather adversely affect the fairness and impartiality of selection process.
2.The allegation that the CPIO has given information is incorrect and mis-leading( and 'try to hide the information" is completely baseless since the CPIO has already provided him information which could be disclosed. Other information which has not been provided is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has stated that in light of Section 8(1)(j) of the RT1 Act, 2005, notice must be issued to third party but in this matter no any notice is served to 3rd party and not received any reply from third party. The appellant has miserably failed to comprehend the difference between the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the concept of 'third party' as provided in Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Notice to the third party is required to be issued only if the CPIO intends to disclose any information which relates to third party. In the instant case, the information was found exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, there was no requirement to issue notice to third party..."
Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO further apprised the bench that even otherwise, the core contention of the Appellant was with regards to his non- selection and that in this regard, the list of selected candidates is already available in public domain which can be easily accessed from the Website of the Respondent without resorting to RTI channel.
Since the Appellant harped on the fact as to where he stood in the entire list , the CPIO agreed to share the threshold cut off marks with the Appellant at the behest of Commission.
7Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply and a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO vide his latest written submissions as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Although, the Commission agrees with the submissions of CPIO that disclosure of merit list of other candidates is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, but the fact remains that this merit list is already available on their Website; therefore, the CPIO should have invited attention of the Appellant to their Website for accessing the information. 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, 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 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 8 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..."
Nonetheless, upon insistence of the Appellant and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant against point no.3 inviting attention to the Website and the hyper link where the merit list is available as also intimating the threshold cut off marks for the selection of candidates vis-à-vis Recruitment of Sea Men and Greesar by Custom Department of Jamnagar against advertisement dated 22-07-2021.
The above said information along with a copy of his latest written submission should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) 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 / 9