Central Information Commission
Akram Khan vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 29 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: -CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/166399/02740
File no.: - CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/166399
In the matter of:
Akram Khan
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Kendirya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110016 ... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/05/2018 CPIO replied on : 08/06/2018 First appeal filed on : 04/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 19/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 09/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 28/01/2020 Date of Decision : 28/01/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant wants copy of the reply from Vice Chairperson Mrs. Rina Ray, Additional Secretary MHRD, New Delhi signed on 28/02/2018 under article 81 B of KVS, Education code, after personal hearing on 02/02/2018 of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ex-TGT(SST) s/o Shri Ram Vilash Prasad Yadav, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ward No. 23, PO & Distt. Khagaria (Bihar)-851205.
Grounds for Second Appeal 1 The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and FAA, claiming exemption u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant. He further submitted that both the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar were terminated from their services on account of moral turpitude. However, later on, the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar was reconsidered by the Additional Secretary and the appellant is aggrieved as to why his case was not reconsidered on the same grounds.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an apt reply was given by the CPIO on 08.06.2018 as the information sought by the appellant constitutes personal information of a third party namely Shri Rakesh Kumar and is thus exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Merely because the case of termination of Shri Rakesh Kumar was reconsidered by the Additional Secretary, that itself is not enough ground to lift the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless some larger public interest is demonstrated by the appellant, which is not the case here. Hence, the Commission is not inclined to give any relief in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) 2 File no.: - CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/166399 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3