Central Information Commission
Manish Jain vs Indian Academy Of Highway Engineers ... 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/IAOHE/A/2022/645371
Manish Jain ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Academy of Highway Engineers,
RTI Cell, A-5 NH - 24 Bypass,
Institutional Area, Sector-62,
Noida - 201301, Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/10/2022
Date of Decision : 06/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 18/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 18/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 03/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.06.2022 seeking the following information:
1. Give the gate scores of all candidates present in the merit list of selection.
2. Give the cut- off score for selection in the panel.
3. Provide the rank based on merit as according to the gate score of applicant.1
The CPIO pointwise replied to the appellant on 15.07.2022 as under:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2022. FAA's order dated 03.08.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Sharna, Joint Director & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
The Appellant stated that he was denied the cut-off marks as being confidential and he wanted to know the merit list to know his rank, that was also not provided and GATE score of all candidates is a public platform information.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and clarified that the merit list of the 35 candidates is based on the GATE score and the Appellant does not figure in the said list or in the top 50.
The Appellant agreed that list of 35 students is there on the website but their ranks, GATE score etc. is not available therein. He further argued that his rank should be informed to him.2
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the scores/ranks of other candidates by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the information as being exempt 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 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 3 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, in terms of limited relief, since the Appellant has clarified during the hearing that he desires to know his rank irrespective of not figuring in the merit list of the 35 candidates, the CPIO is directed to provide the information corresponding to point no.3 of the RTI Application, i.e the rank of the Appellant and specify the cut-off score as sought for at point no.2 therein. The said information shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO within 7 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) हािन) 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 / 4