Central Information Commission
T M Najmudeen vs Department Of Agricultural Research & ... on 20 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DOARE/A/2019/648157
In the matter of:
T M Najmudeen
... Appellant
VS
CPIO & CTO
Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board,
Department of Agricultural Research & Education
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-I, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/02/2019 CPIO replied on : 11/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 10/04/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 30/04/2019 Second Appeal dated : 14/08/2019 Date of Hearing : 19/10/2020 Date of Decision : 19/10/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Shri Suresh Pal, Chief Technical Officer and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has not received a satisfactory reply in respect Points 2, 3 & 4 of his RTI application which are stated below:
2. Provide the marks/scores awarded under B01 Research papers in assessment performance/score card under the revised CAS for consideration for promotion from senior scientist grade to principal scientist grade, duly filled and submitted by Dr. Margarett Muthu 1 Rathinam, Senior Scientist, CMFRI, for the assessment interview held on 01- 09-2012 at ASRB, New Delhi in the discipline of FISH PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
3. Extract of the assessment performance/score card submitted to ASRB by Dr. Margarett Muthu Rathinam under Sl. No. B01 Research Papers indicating the name, title and volume number of publication to claim score/marks under Sl. No B01 Research papers for the assessment interview held on 04- 09-2012.
4. Name of the Chairman of the Assessment Committee constituted for revised CAS held on 04-09-2012 in FISH PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY at ASRB, New Delhi.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the information on some of the points of the RTI application claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) and ( e) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that he has sought information regarding the scoring of scientists during their promotion assessment conducted by ASRB, New Delhi and other information based on the documents available at ASRB. The scientists assessed for promotion by ASRB are government servants whose salary and allowances are paid from Government public fund and the promotion of scientist from a lower grade pay to higher grade pay involves liability to the national exchequer. He further submitted that any citizen of lndia has the right to know the process involved and fairness of the procedure of such promotion assessments of scientists who are responsible to the farmers and the development of agriculture in the country and are paid from the government fund. Hence the requested information would not fall under the purview of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. During the hearing he submitted that he was also a candidate and was not awarded promotion. He pressed for the information as a matter of right being one of the candidates whose promotion was due. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 14.10.2010 in which he submitted that the information sought is on the awarding of marks during promotion of scientists from a lower Research Grade Pay (RGP) of Rs.9000 to higher RGP of Rs.10000. The scientists assessed for promotion by the public authority, ASRB, are 2 government servants whose salary and allowances are paid from Govt./public fund and the promotion of scientists from a lower grade pay to higher grade pay involves liability to the national exchequer. He further submitted that any citizen of India has the right to know the process involved and fairness of the procedure of such promotion assessments of scientists who are responsible to the farmers and the development of agriculture in the country and are paid from the government fund. Hence the requested information would not fall under the purview of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. Further, he submitted that, while delivering the decision on Sh. Bishambar Dayal Tyagi Vs Delhi Jal Board (Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000173 dated 05.05.2009), the Commission argued that for information to qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(j), it must be „personal‟ information. The word "personal" is attributed to an individual and not an institution. Accordingly personal cannot be related to institutions. The phrase "disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activities or interest" means that the information must not have some relationship to any public activity. When a person applies for a job or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee or asks permission or licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. The Commission also ordered disclosure of information relating to empanelment of officers as approved by ACC for promotion to the higher posts , which cannot be exempted under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (in Chamundeswari Vs Department of Revenue. Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000277 dated 05.03.2009) In T.V. Varghese Vs BSNL (Appeal No.251/ICPB/2006 dated 02.01.2007) case, while asking for certain information relating to the list of candidates who qualified for the position of Junior Telecom Officers (JTO) during the year 1992-1998 and the marks obtained by each of the successful candidates, the CIC has clearly held that such information is not prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, the scores given for promotion of the public servants by a public office is a public activity and the Score card of the candidates is not a private document. He summed up stating that he was also a candidate who appeared for promotion assessment interview held in 2015, conducted by the public authority, ASRB through the same procedure followed for the above mentioned candidates, therefore, he would like to know whether there has been any discrepancy in scoring for candidates against various parameters in the score card during the assessments conducted by the public authority, ASRB. Hence, the principle of severability under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act can also be applied to this case.3
In respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application, he mentioned that when a committee is formed to give a report or assessment or public cause, the information provided or the names of the committee members cannot be said to be given in fiduciary relationship. Hence in such cases the plea of the public authority seeking exemption under the garb of fiduciary relationship is incongruous and the Commission found that the documents cannot be held in fiduciary capacity as no fiduciary relationship exists (in Sunil Kumar Bensal Vs Southern Railways case) Moreover, as per the ICAR order No. 1(2)/2012-Per.IV dated 5.12.2012, the composition of assessment committee for the promotion of senior scientist (RGP 9000) to Principal Scientist (RGP 10000) is given as under
1 Chairman/ASRB Chairman 2 DG,ICAR or his nominee Member 3 Three experts, out of which one from ICAR Member institutes other than the institute which the concerned senior scientist belongs 4 Director of the concerned institute Member Based on the above records, he submitted that the Chairman for promotion assessment interview will be one among the permanent members of ASRB and not a person who has a fiduciary relationship with the public authority, ASRB.
Hence the information sought cannot be exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 11.03.2019 and stated that the asessment of a third party cannot be given being their personal information.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO rightly denied the information sought u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in respect of points no. 2 and 3. It is pertinent to mention here the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of CANARA BANK VS C S SHYAM, CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009 dated 31.08.2017 wherein it was held as under:4
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.
15) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court."
With reference to the decisions relied upon by the appellant, the Commission refers to the above decision, and does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO on these two points, more so when no larger public interest has been substantiated by the appellant. Mere oral submissions that the process followed for granting promotion needs to be verified cannot be construed as a public interest matter in absence of material evidence. Moreover, the appellant seems to have a grievance at not being selected for the promotion .
5In respect of point no. 4, information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, i.e. the name of the Chairman of the Assessment Committee constituted for revised CAS held on 04-09-2012 in FISH PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY at ASRB, New Delhi. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of the cannot be disclosed to maintain the confidentiality of the process and fiduciary relationship does not mean that the concerned person cannot be a permanent member. The appellant's plea of applicability of severability clause is also not maintainable as he clearly had sought information relating to third parties.
Decision:
Keeping in view the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and based on the fact that no larger public interest could be substantiated by the appellant, the Commission finds no further ground to intervene in this matter and hence the reply given is considered just and proper.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
6