Central Information Commission
Mrs Saraswati vs Cabinet Secretariat on 18 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26717355
Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2015/002634
Appellant: Ms. S. Saraswati, D/o S. Prakash Rao
R/o. MIG93, PhaseII, Housing Board Colony, At/PO
Charbatia, Distt. Cuttak754028, Odisha (9778086847)
Respondent: Central Information Officer
Cabinet Secretariat, RTI Cell, Bikaner House, Shahjahan
Road, New Delhi110011
Date of Hearing: 18.05.2016
Dated of Decision: 18.05.2016
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 13.11.2014 seeking information on 9 points regarding details of recruitment of Ayah during 200607 & 200708, at ARC, Charbatia, etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 19.06.2014. The appellant filed first appeal on 13.11.2014 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 17.12.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 17.03.2015 with the Commission.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing. Page 1 of 4
4. The appellant referred her RTI application and stated that the entire information sought for is relating to service matter which has no nexus with the intelligence and security of the Nation. The appellant stated that she wanted to know that under what circumstances her candidature was not considered for the post of Ayah for the direct recruitment during financial year 200607 & 200708. The appellant stated that it is learnt that she stood 1 st in the selection for which interview was held on 05.02.2007.
5. The appellant stated that by supplying some information sought for by the appellant vide their order dated 17.11.2014, the authorities admitted to the extent that exemption clause under Section 24(1) of RTI Act is not applicable in the present case. Hence, refusal to furnish the rest information sought for , the same authority cannot take the shelter under exemption clause under RTI Act.
6. The appellant stated that non appointment/engagement of the appellant in the post in question is in violation of her human rights The appellant stated that the appointing authority must have adapted corrupt practice while filing up the post of "Ayah" for which interview was held 05.02.2007.
7. The appellant relied upon the judgment dated 28.04.2011 passed in the LPA no. 744,745 of 2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and decision dated 06.04.2011 passed in W.P(A). No. 320 of 2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
8. The respondent stated that the appellant vide letter dated 13.10.2014 was informed that the information sought for by him pertains to Intelligence and Security Organisation under the Cabinet Secretariat which is exempted under section 24 (1) of the RTI Act. However, the appellant vide letter dated 17.12.2014 was informed that there was two posts of Ayah for the post of Ayah in the recruitment year 200708. The respondent stated that the name of selected candidates and other related information cannot be disclosed. The respondent enquired the basis on which she claimed that she had stood 1st in the interview held on 05.02.2007. Discussion/ observation:
Page 2 of 4
9. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in its judgment dated 28.04.2011 in the LPA no. 744,745 of 2011 held that:
"As mentioned above, the expression pertaining to allegation of corruption cannot be exhaustively defined. The Act is to stepinaid to establish the society governed by law in which corruption has no place. The Act envisages a transparent public office. Therefore, even in organizations which are exempt from the provisions of the Act, in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, still information which relates to corruption or the information which excludes the allegation of corruption would be relevant information and cannot be denied for the reasons that the organization is exempted under the Act. The information sought in the present case is in respect of the number of vacancies which have fallen to the share of the specified category and whether such posts have been filled up from amongst the eligible candidates. If such information is disclosed, it will lead to transparent administration which is antithesis of corruption. If organization has nothing to hide or to cover a corrupt practice, the information should be made available. The information sought may help in dispelling favoritism, nepotism or arbitrariness. Such information is necessary for establishing the transparent administration."
10. The sought for information can be provided to the appellant using suitably severability clause in Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act. Decision:
11. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, information within 30 days of this order as per request in the RTI application but there shall be no obligation to disclose details relating to 3rd parties and any details which impinge on the security of the organisation. The respondent may suitably use the severability clause in Section 10(1) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy Page 3 of 4 (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar Page 4 of 4