Central Information Commission
Smt.Rajni Bajaj vs National Board Of Examinations on 10 October, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002273/15097
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002273
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Smt. Rajni Bajaj,
52, Lal Bahadur Sadan,
Gol Market, New Delhi.
.
Respondent : Mr. B. N. Khatri
PIO & Assistant Director, National Board of Examinations, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Mahatma Gandhi Marg, (Ring Road), Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029.
RTI application filed on : 14/01/2011 PIO replied on : 17/02/2011 First Appeal filed on : 04/03/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 04/04/2011 Second Appeal received on : 02/05/2011 Information Sought:
1. Kindly specify the reasons for not following Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal's decision regarding reinstatement of my services as Date Entry Operator in National Board of Examinations.
2. Kindly give the reasons for filing an appeal against the decision of the Hon'ble Central Administrative in High Court, Delhi regarding my case of reinstatement of my services as Data Entry Operator in National Board of Examinations.
3. Kindly provide me the noting of the file where the decision to appeal of my case in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was taken.
4. Kindly provide me the names of the individual involved in decision regarding the appealing in case in Hon'ble High Court, Delhi.
5. Kindly provide me the details of the money spent so far by National Board of Examinations on legal expenses on various court cases in Delhi High Court and CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi (since February 2006 to till date).
6. What has happened so far to my application for rejoining submitted be me on date 15/12/2010.
7. An authenticated copy of the constitution of DPC for confirmation to the post of Date Entry Operator may please be provided.
8. A copy of the minutes of the Governing Body meeting, which was held on 19/12/2010, may please be provided.
The PIO reply:
Query No. 1 & Query No. 2The order of Central Administrative Tribunal has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 6th January 2007, in Writ Petition No. 58/2011. A copy of the aforesaid writ petition Page 1 of 4 and order of the Hon'ble High Court have already being provided to you by NMBE counsel by hand. The reasons for not following the CAT decision and filling the appeal are stated in the writ petition.Query No. 3 & Query No. 4
A copy of the file noting cannot be provided as this shall reveal the names of identify officers/functionaries involved in the decision making process, posing a threat to their life and movement. Since the elaborate reasons for filling the appeal have already being provided to you and also presented before the Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi, the instant query can not be suggest or reveal any further information. Further there is no public interest that is served by revealing the information desired. On the contrary there is threat of life and liberty to th4e functionaries involved in the process.Query No. 5
The information desired dates back to 5-6 years, compilation of this information shall involve disproportionate deployment of resources. There is no public interest that is served by diverting the resources of public authority for compilation of this information. The applicant herein is involved in legal cases with NBE since past 5 years for private interest, limited to the applicant. In the instant case the public authority is ceased with most important & time bound activities as conduct of centralized counseling and various examinations, where fate of thousands of this public function shall suffer.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"Kindly refer to your above stated appeal filed against the response and information provided by Sh. B.N. Khatri, CPIO, vide letter no. 18738 dated 17th February 2011. I have examined the related documents in this regard and independently assessed the information supplied by the CPIO in response to your RTI application received in office of NBE on 20th January 2011. the contents of the CWP No. 58/2011 pending before Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi have already being supplied to you by the NBE counsel by hand.
In response to your query no. 3 & 4 it is the factual position that the various averments, reasons and grounds cited by National Board of Examinations towards filing the instant writ petition against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal have already been supplied to you vide CWP No. 58/2011. The additional information in the form of the file noting and names of persons writing the notes etc cannot be supplied to you as there is threat to the life and movement of concerned officers and functionaries by revealing there names as has been sought by you. The CPIO NBE has justified this position and the same is based on facts, U/s 8 of the RTI Act the non-disclosure of such information is permissible. Further, there is no public interest that is served by revealing such information and you have already stated on record that "File/noting is required in connection with my court case in personal capacity" and "provide me the names of individual involved"
In response to your query No. 5 the information sought by you is maintained by NBE in fiduciary capacity and there are definitive third part rights on the information. The third party in this case has not given consent for revealing this information. The justification given by CPIO is valid and based on facts.
In response to query No. 7, it is for your kind information that the details of committee meeting dated th 18 May 2005 are already available in the CWP No. 58/2011 copy of which have already been supplied to you by NBE free of cost (by hand).
In response to query no. 8, your averments in this regard are incorrect, the minutes of the meeting have only been circulated and not been confirmed, Hence they cannot be revealed at this stage. Your appeal is settled in terms of the detailed information supplied to you along with supporting documents and reasons."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been given by the PIO and Unsatisfactory reply had been provided by the FAA.Page 2 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Smt. Rajni Bajaj;
Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Gosain, Advocate representing Mr. B. N. Khatri, PIO & Assistant Director;
The PIO has refused to give information on query 3 & 4. The PIO claims exemption regarding information on query 3 & 4 claiming Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO states that revealing the names of the officers who made the notings is likely to endanger the life or physical safety of such officers. The Commission notes that it is a very sad comment on the employees of an organization if an organization claims that a former employee who is a lady is capable of physically harming its officers. However, the Commission directs the PIO to server the names of the officers and as per Section 10 of the RTI Act and give a typed copy of notings to the Appellant.
As regards query-5 the PIO states that he can provide the total legal expenses incurred in the matter. The PIO is also directed to provide a copy of the information sought by the Appellant in query-8.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information regarding query 3, 4, 5 & 8 as directed above to the Appellant before 30 October 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 10 October 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved) Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4