Central Information Commission
Ratan Lal vs University Of Delhi on 17 July, 2019
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
Decision no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/127875/01097
File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/127875
In the matter of:
Ratan Lal
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Hindu College,
University of Delhi, Delhi - 110 007
&
Central Public Information Officer
University of Delhi,
Administrative Block, Delhi - 110 007
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/01/2018 CPIO replied on : 05/02/2018 First appeal filed on : 05/03/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 03/05/2018 Date of Hearing : 16/07/2019 Date of Decision : 16/07/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present along with his representative, Adv Aditya Kumar Chaudhary Respondent: Dr Reena Jain, Associate Professor & PIO, Hindu College, Ms Meenakshi Sahay, DR & CPIO, Delhi University.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding the Pre Screen Data for the post of Principal, Hindu College, University of Delhi:
1. What is the total no. of applications received for the above mentioned post?1
2. How many applicants are eligible for the post as per UGC norms?
3. Provide names, current designation and API score of eligible and non eligible applicants.
4. Provide the claimed and granted API scores of all the applicants filled in the application form in each category and sub category (I, II and III).
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.' 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 has not been provided to him particularly on points No. 5 & 6 of the RTI application. He further submitted that he was one of the applicants for the post of Principal, Hindu College and since he was not selected even in the first list, he wants to know details about the persons who were called for the interview including their names, current designation, API scores and details of Research Papers, publications etc. He further submitted that he has a right to know on what basis and with what qualifications other candidates had been shortlisted for the interview whereas he had been rejected. The appellant also submitted a copy of the API Points Summary for the post of Principal in Kirori Mal College and stated that they had provided column wise API points secured by each applicant during the Pre-Screening test and this system ought to have been followed by Hindu College as well. He further stated that all the replies provided to him were against the spirit of the RTI Act as in every reply it was stated that the requisite information was not available with them. In fact, any of the PIOs could have told the appellant as to who is the custodian of the information from where he could have got the desired information.
The PIO, Hindu College submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 06.02.2018. She further submitted that the advertisement for the post of Principal was issued on 10.10.2017. At the time of receipt of the RTI application, the whole process of appointment was in progress. Moreover, since the officiating Principal of the College was also one of the applicants for the said post, the whole matter was taken over by the Governing Body and 2 File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/127875 hence the College was not in possession of any of the documents as had been sought by the appellant in his RTI application. She also submitted that the appellant had filed a writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court praying that the Governing Body should undertake a fresh exercise for appointing the Principal of the College and the Learned Single Bench in its relief accepted the prayer of the appellant. However, this decision was challenged by the Governing Body by way of filing an LPA No.727/2018 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. She also submitted that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, API Scores of all the candidates and their names had been already provided to the appellant and is also displayed on the website of the College.
The CPIO, Delhi University also submitted a copy of the rules and instructions which were to be followed by all the applicants while submitting their application form for the post of Principal.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the averments put forth by both the parties, it is noted that the main grievance of the appellant is that he was not shortlisted to appear in the interview by the Governing Body and hence he wants to know on what basis other candidates were short-listed and were called for interview. It is further observed that in the reply of the PIO, Hindu College dated 06.02.2018, except on point no 3 of the RTI application, no other information was provided to the appellant. However, it was sufficiently explained by the concerned PIO during the hearing that since the officiating principal of the College was one of the applicants for the above mentioned post, the whole recruitment process and all the related documents were in the possession of the Governing Body and hence a reply to this effect was provided to the appellant. This reply however, is not proper as most of the points raised by the appellant in his RTI application pertained to third parties and even if such information was in the custody of the College, the same could not have been provided to the appellant being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant had sought the information just to compare his API scores with the other candidates and this reason is not enough to lift the exemption provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The entire thrust of the applicant's RTI is more in the nature of personal grievance for not having been shortlisted at various stages of the selection process.3
However, based on the submissions made during the hearing, the PIO Hindu College is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant. On point No. 1, the total no. of applications received for the above mentioned post, if available with the respondent may be provided. On point No. 2, the number of applicants who are eligible for the post as per UGC norms, if available may be provided. On both of these points, if the information is not available with the concerned PIO, she is directed to take assistance from the holder of the information u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the same to the appellant based on the fact that the recruitment process for the above mentioned post is already complete. On points No 3& 4, if the API Scores of the candidates had been displayed on the website of the College or are available in public domain, the same is to be supplied to the appellant and if not, the same are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. With regard to points no 5& 6 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought certified documents (details of the Research Papers, Book Publications, Research Projects, Consultancy Projects, Project Outcome/ Outputs, Research Guidance, Fellowships, Honours and Awards, Invited Lectures/Papers presented in International & National State /University level and Learning Module Development) of each the applicant and the details of the Pre-Screening Committee Members, who had screened the application for the post of Principal, Hindu College, both of which are purely in the nature of personal information, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence no relief on these points can be provided to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant was not able to demonstrate any public interest involved in the disclosure of the information apart form stating that he wants the information to compare his own API score with that of the other candidates and also the issue of appointment for the above mentioned post has been already discussed at length by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 727/2018. Decision:
Based on the above observations, the PIO Hindu College is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant as discussed during the hearing and as indicated above within the provisions of the RTI Act within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) 4 File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/127875 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 5