Central Information Commission
Mrkannammal V vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 12 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001971-YA
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2014
Date of Interim Decision : 01.08.2014
Date of Final Decision : 12.05.2015
Complainant/Appellant : Shri V. Kannammal
Puducherry
Respondent : Shri Subramanieswa Rao,
PIO/Member Secy.
Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam
Puducherry
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.04.2013
PIO replied on : 03.05.2013
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 19.06.2013
Complaint/ Second Appeal received on : 21.08.2013
Information sought:
The appellant had sought information regarding qualifications desirable as teaching staff and qualification of teachers currently working in the public authority. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application on 05.04.2013 seeking the above information. The PIO in his reply informed that the appellant can collect information on Point 1 on depositing requisite fee and denied information on qualification of present staff working in the public authority stating that the same is third party information and disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of concerned individuals. The FAA upheld the PIO's decision.
The appellant stated that information only on Point 1 has been received. The respondent stated that since the establishment of the institute, several litigations are pending regarding appointment of teachers. The fact of the matter is that teachers were appointed in the institute without conducting any interview; those who were appointed were appointed on temporary basis and were then affiliated from Puducherry University. The PIO further stated that consent from third parties was taken and they have denied disclosure of the same. On query by the Commission as to what exactly is the nature of litigations pending due to which information cannot be provided, the respondent stated that he is not aware of the same.
The appellant stated that the PIO and FAA are the same person, which is a violation under the RTI Act. The respondent stated that due to scarcity of staff and he is the only officer appointed by the Govt. to look after the public authority, so in order to facilitate the RTI regime, he is holding the post of both PIO and FAA.
Interim Decision: 01.08.2014 After hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission directs the respondent to file a written submission as to why the information on qualifications of present teaching staff cannot be provided, in addition to the nature of litigations pending for same and how it will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of concerned individuals, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
The Commission shall pass a final order on the basis of written submissions received from the respondent and fresh hearing will be fixed, if desired.
Judgement Reserved.
Final Decision: 12.05.2015 Written submission dt. 08.08.2014 was filed by Shri D. Subramanieswa Rao and the same have been perused.
The PIO has stated therein in detail the litigations pending regarding appointment of teachers, since the establishment of the institute. However, no reasons for not disclosing the qualification of the present teaching staff have been given by him. As stated by the PIO, during the hearing on 09.07.2014, the fact is that teachers were appointed in the institute without conducting any interview; those who were appointed were appointed on temporary basis and were then affiliated from Puducherry University. The PIO has given a list of writ petitions disposed of and the ones that are pending. On bare perusal of the same, the Commission finds that none of the litigations pending are w.r.t. the teacher/staff's qualification.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that the qualification of teachers/staff currently working in the public authority can be given, as available on record, disclosure of which would neither impede any pending investigation nor is exempted u/s 8(1)(j). The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO to provide information on Point 2 of the RTI application dt. 05.04.2013 to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar