Central Information Commission
Shri Rednam Deepak vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 8 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000746 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000747
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000686 F.No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000687
Dated, the 08th January, 2010.
Appellant : Shri Rednam Deepak
Respondents : Visakhapatnam Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing (VC) on 16.12.2009 in the presence of both parties. Appellant and the Appellate Authority's rep., Shri Venugopal were present at NIC VC facility at Visakhapatnam. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-applications dated 23.03.2009 & 30.04.2009, had requested for information relating to the written examination for the post of Law Officer (Class-I) in the public authority, viz. Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The 12 items of queries contained in his RTI-application dated 23.03.2009 were as follows:-
"1. Copies of Original Booklets pertaining to the Written Examination for all the candidates for the post of Law Officer (Class-I).
2. Copies of Original Booklets pertaining to the Written Examination for short listed candidates, for 5 (Five) general candidates.
3. Copies of all the candidates Original Applications.
4. All the candidates Written Examination attendance signature sheet.
5. Interview attendance signature sheet for short listed candidates, for 5 (Five) general candidates.
6. Note File for the entire selection starting from first day to till completion of the selection process for the post of Law Officer (Class-I)
7. List of all the candidates who have appeared rank-wise with marks obtained for the post of Law Officer (Class-I).
8. List of 5 (Five) merit rank holders along with marks.
9. Selection proceedings of 5 (Five) candidates appeared for 1 (One) Unreserved vacancy along with the marks.
AT-08012010-01.doc Page 1 of 3
10. List of final marks of Written Test and Interview for 5 (Five) candidates with the marks.
11. Hall Tickets & Interview Letters for all the candidates.
12. Selected candidate offer of appointment letter."
3. It is seen that respondents had allowed the appellant to inspect the records relating to the queries at Sl.No.4 to 8 and Sl.Nos.11 to 12. Respondents declined to allow the appellant to take copies of the documents inspected by him. Appellant's plea is that having allowed him to inspect the records, respondents could not have prevented the appellant from taking copies of the inspected documents.
4. Appellant's plea is entirely valid. It is directed that CPIO shall provide to the appellant copies of the documents inspected by him on collecting from him all the requisite fees as provided in the RTI Act and the Rules. This may be finalized within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
5. That leaves out queries at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. Respondents have declined to disclose information corresponding to these items to the appellant on the ground that this was personal information of third-parties, i.e. the candidates who took the examination conducted by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust for the post of Law Officer (Class-I). Respondents' plea is that the appellant himself was not a candidate in that examination and, therefore, had no locus-standi in the matter.
6. Under the RTI law, the question of disclosure of information is not decided on the basis of who is seeking the information, but on the basis of the disclosability of the information. In other words, unless a set of information is specifically exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, such information cannot be withheld merely because the person seeking it has had no relationship with it. From that standpoint, denial of information to the appellant on grounds of locus-standi is flawed.
7. Such matters were earlier the subject-matter of decision of the Commission in Dr.Vijendra Singh Vs. ASRB; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/ 2006/00579; Date of Decision: 04.04.2007 and Harish Saliyavar Vs. LIC; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/007374; Date of Decision: 29.08.2007. According to these decisions of the Commission, the following information relating to written examinations and Interview Board conducted by public authorities were disclosable:-
AT-08012010-01.doc Page 2 of 3
(i) Written Examination marks of all candidates.
(ii) Interview marks of all candidates.
(iii) Marks awarded by each Interview Board Member without disclosing the identity of the Member by substituting his name with alphabets.
8. It is accordingly directed that information relating to Sl. Nos. 3, 9 & 10 of appellant's RTI-queries be disclosed to him within 3 weeks of the receipt of this decision. In regard to item at Sl. No. 1 & 2 of the queries, no information need be disclosed as these are clearly 3rd-party information/documents.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-08012010-01.doc Page 3 of 3