Central Information Commission
P. Krishna vs Niper, Hyderabad on 30 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPHY/A/2023/624405
P. Krishna ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Institute of Pharmaceutical ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Education Research,
Hyderabad
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.01.2023 FA : 25.02.2023 SA : 18.05.2023
CPIO : 14.03.2023 FAO : 10.03.2023 Hearing : 24.07.2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) As per NIPER advertisement NIPERHYD/01/202122 for the post of Technical Assistant computer section, essential educational qualification is Bachelor degree computer science is given, please give following copies and details.
Candidates having computer science as one of subjects in graduation are they eligible for the post NT004, provide information of the same. Number of Page 1 of 5 candidates having computer science degree as one of subjects applied and shortlisted, give their details.
Number of candidates with bachelor degree in computer science as only subject appeared give the details.
Application copies of shortlisted candidates for Tier II examination NIPER held through notification NIPER-HYD/01/2021-22 for the examinations held for post code NT-003, NT-004, NT-005, NT-006, NT-007.
The details of essential educational qualifications of six shortlisted candidates for tier II exam in technical assistant computer section and the application copies of the six shortlisted candidates for Tier II examination in respect of the post code NT-004 Technical Section computer section conducted vide NIPER Advt no. NIPER-HYD/2021-22 conducted on 12/04/2022, may please be provided at earliest. The list shown on website is below give the copies of application showing minimum education qualifications. Please give immediately without waiting for due date.
Admit Card No. Application No. 1432 NIPERHYD202202026694 1831 NIPERHYD202202093326 2654 NIPERHYD202202285175 2763 NIPERHYD202203015823 3847 NIPERHYD202202053873 5110 NIPERHYD202202285556
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 10.03.2023 transferred the Appeal to the concerned Authority.
Page 2 of 53. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The list of shortlisted candidates for Tier-II exam is already available on Institute website. Further, furnishing the other information of the applicants required in the RTI would affect the competitive position of applicants in future recruitments at NIPERs. Hence may not be furnished under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.05.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Manoj Dhote, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought educational qualification of the 6 candidates who scored less marks than him but have been short listed for Tier-II exam for the post of Technical Assistant. He further submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 14.03.2023. He stated that the information sought pertained to the third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1)
(d) of the RTI Act. However, a list of shortlisted candidates is already available on their website.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has wrongly claimed exemption of section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act in their reply dated 14.03.2023, as the appellant has sought personal educational qualification of short listed candidates (third parties), which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Page 3 of 5 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 & amp; 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 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..."
9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. Chemicals & Fertilizer,
Department of Pharmaceutical,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education Research, Administrative Officer & CPIO, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500037
2. P. Krishna Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)