Prajyot Shamkuwar vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 January, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prajyot Shamkuwar vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 January, 2021

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                              के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2018/636949

Prajyot Shamkuwar                                          ....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069                                       ...  ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                    :   11/01/2021
Date of Decision                   :   11/01/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on        : 21/11/2018
CPIO replied on                 : 11/12/2018
First appeal filed on           : 11/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 14/12/2018
Second Appeal dated             : 14/12/2018

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant sought information regarding the marks obtained by him in the Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) and interview held for the post of DCIO/Tech. against advertisement no. 23/2016 dated 24.12.2016 on the following points.

1. Provide marks obtained by me in CBRT and Interview respectively.

2. Provide marks obtained by the last finally recommended candidate in SC category in CBRT and Interview respectively.

The CPIO informed the appellant on 11.12.2018 that;

"Point No.1: Marks obtained by the candidate bearing Roll No.0009707 are 117.18 out of 300 in Written Test and 030 out of 100 in Interview. Point No.2: Bifurcation of marks of other candidates cannot be provided as per policy of the Commission."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2018. FAA's order dated 14.12.2018 upheld the reply of CPIO and disposed of his appeal.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of the information sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application, 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: Maha Singh, Under Secretary & CPIO present through intra video- conference.

The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application as has merely sought for the bifurcation of the total marks of the last recommended candidate and none of his personal particulars like name, qualifications etc. He further stated that if the total marks of the candidates can be disclosed in the public domain, why the bifurcation of the marks cannot be disclosed. Lastly, he stated that he has sought for this information to assess his own performance in the averred recruitment.

The CPIO submitted that UPSC has a policy to disclose the total marks but not the bifurcation of the marks obtained by other candidates as it is hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and whatever information was sought for regarding the Appellant the same has been provided to him.

Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that although the CPIO erred in not having invoked the appropriate exemption clause of the RTI Act for denying the information sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application, however, the FAA subsequently invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

It may be noted that the Appellant has not argued any larger public interest in the disclosure of the said information and hence the denial of the information sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act requires no further intervention as it pertains to third parties and disclosure of the break-up of their written exam & interview marks may entail disclosure of their personal traits and may thereby result in unwarranted invasion of their privacy. In the facts of the instant case, a judgment dated 06.08.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Gaurhari Kamila is relevant wherein the following was held:

"By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgement, we hold that the CIC committed a serious illegality by directing the Commission to disclose the information sought by the respondent at point no. 4 and 5 and the High Court committed an error by approving his order.

We may add that neither the CIC nor the High Court came to the conclusion that disclosure of the information relating to other candidates was necessary in larger public interest. Therefore, the present case is not covered by the exception carved out in section 8 (1)

(e) of the Act."

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy 3 (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission