Central Information Commission
Sudhakar Baluchamy vs Pondicherry University on 24 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/PONDU/A/2019/655277
Sudhakar Baluchamy ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Pondicherry University, RTI
Cell, Bharat RatnaDr. B.R. Ambedkar
Admn., Building, R.V. Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry - 605014. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/06/2021
Date of Decision : 22/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SarojPunhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/03/2019
CPIO replied on : 15/04/2019 & 17/04/2019
First appeal filed on : 27/05/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/09/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2019 seeking the following information:2
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 15.04.2019 stated as under:-
Point Nos. 1 & 10:- CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9:- Not dealt with the establishment (Teaching) Section. However, the query has been transferred to the Section Officer (Recruitment Cell) for providing information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Point Nos. 11 & 12:- Appellant is requested to specifically ask the particulars/information required.
Subsequently, CPIO on 17.04.2019 furnished the information to the appellant against point nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and for 7, 8 & 9 the RTI application was forwarded to the Assistant Registrar (Estt.-Teaching)/PIO.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: K. Mahesh, Assistant Registrar (Establishment - Teaching) & Deemed PIO (DPIO) present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that he has been provided with the information on points 7,8,9 only a day prior to the hearing before the Commission. He further stated that the denial of the information on points 1 & 10 of the RTI Application is not acceptable and reiterated his grounds of the Second Appeal wherein he had stated as under:
"....University cannot say all these information are "personal". As an employee of the same Department of Biotechnology, Pondicherry University, I have every right to claim these information to know whether my fellow colleague, Dr. Hannah Rachel Vasanthi is indeed has required essential Ph.D. qualification in Life Sciences, whether she is following research ethics, 3 whether University monitored her academic and research qualifications before appointing her in the University and also monitored her eligibility for promotions from "Reader" to "Associate Professor" and "Associate Professor" to "Professor". All these claims are directly affecting my academic career."
The DPIO submitted that the Appellant has been provided with all the available information for points. 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI Application.
Decision:
The Commission observes upon a perusal of the facts on record that the reply provided by the CPIO & Deemed PIOs on points no.1,8,9,10,11 & 12 is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The information pertaining to the third party's service matter stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and has been rightly denied by the CPIO. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information.Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal 4 information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Having observed as above, no relief can be ordered in the matter, however, the Commission takes grave exception to the inordinate delay caused by the Assistant Registrar (Establishment - Teaching) & deemed PIO in replying to points no.7, 8 & 9 of the RTI Application. The Commission records severe admonition for the said deemed PIO and cautions him to remain careful in future. Moreover, the said deemed PIO erred in disclosing the third-party related information on point no.7 of the RTI Application without seeking for the consent of the third party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act.
The Assistant Registrar (Establishment - Teaching) & deemed PIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose any third-party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The Commission also notes that the Appellant has been unnecessarily inconvenienced on account of the inordinate delay caused by one of the deemed PIOs in responding to a part of the RTI Application. It would have been prudent for the nodal CPIO to have collated the replies of all the concerned deemed PIOs and sent it as one composite communication to the Appellant at the relevant time itself which would have further ensured timely provision of the complete reply to the RTI Application. In furtherance of this observation, the CPIO/Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell is directed to take note of the said advisory to be followed to the extent possible while dealing with RTI Applications in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6