Central Information Commission
Biren Chandra De vs Department Of Posts on 16 June, 2022
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/POSTS/A/2021/121282
Biren Chandra De ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o the Supdt. of Post Offices,
RTI Cell, Purulia Division, Purulia - 723101,
West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/06/2022
Date of Decision : 14/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 07/01/2021 & 22/01/2021
First appeal filed on : 05/02/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 25/02/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/05/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2020 seeking information in respect of option call against vacant post of Mail overseer for Adra Sub-Division circulated through Divisional office letter number B9/postman/OS/Purulia dated 27.02.2020, including inter-alia;
1. Intimate the name of applied candidate with seniority basis.
2. Intimate name of selected candidate with details disposal of their selected letter and also their date of join.1
3. Supply the guideline of the directorate as issued from time to time for filling up of vacant post of Mail Overseer.
4. Supply copy of note sheet regarding selection of Mail O/S from applied candidates.
5. If Junior official selected-depriving senior official then kindly supply the order copy of approval officer.
6. Supply copy of selected letters if issued by I. Post's, Adra Sub-Division.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 07.01.2021 stating as follows:-
1) "Name of applied candidates on seniority basis: (i) Nabogopal Kalindi, (ii) Apurba Mandal, (iii) Biren Chandra De.
2) Selected Candidate: Apurba Mandal. He has not joined the said post, hence, date of joining does not arise. His selection letter was dispatched by ordinary post.
3) No such guideline of Directorate is available in material form.
4) Xerox copy of note-sheet is ready for: supply (1 page) on receipt of on submission of requisite charges **.
5) No junior is selected formally from this end depriving senior.
6) Xerox copy of selection letter issued by I. Post's Adra Sub Division is ready for supply (1 page) on submission of requisite charges."
The CPIO/SPO, Purulia Dv. upon receipt of RTI fees furnished relevant information against points no. 4 and 6 to the Appellant on 22.01.2021 stating as follows:-
4) "Xerox copy of note-sheet regarding selection of Mail O/S from applied candidates.
6) Xerox copy of letter issued by I.Posts's, Adra Sub Division."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2021. FAA's order dated 25.02.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO & SPO's, Purulia Dn.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"....CPIO not informed me the information in respect of Utpal Mahato junior Official who has been performing the duty of Mail Overseer-ll Adra Division ignoring the seniority list and also selection of Apurba Mandal as mail Overseer-l is totally ignoring the selection process..."2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shiv P Majhi, SPO & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the information sought by him for selected candidates (except for point no. 3 of RTI Application) pertains to personal information of third parties which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act; yet ignoring this aspect the relevant information has already been furnished by the CPIO.
No oral submission as such has been tendered by the CPIO during the hearing. However, the Commission remarked that the CPIO has filed a written submission dated 26.05.2022, relevant portion of which is reproduced below -
"With due regards, this is to intimate that reasoned reply was supplied vide this office letters of even no. dated 07/01/2020, 14/01/2020 and 22/01/2021 to the applicant/appellant, Sri Biren Chandra De in respect of his RTI application dated 18/12/2020 as per availability of material records at this office, and the said reply was upheld by the 1" Appellate authority, i.e. Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Region vide his letter no. PMG(SB)/CPT- C/RTI/Appeal-07-02-2021 dated 25/02/2021. However, written submission on behalf of the under signed submitted below for favour of kind consideration:-
In respect of point no.1 of referred RTI application it was rightly intimated that (i)Nabogopal Kalindi, (ii)Apurba Mandal, (iii)Biren Chandra De were the names of candidates who applied on seniority basis in response to option call against vacant post of Mail Overseer for Adra Sub Division.
In respect of point no.2 name of selected candidate was inadvertently mentioned in this office reply of even no. dated 07/01/2022 as "Apurba Mandal". However, the error was corrected through suitable Corrigendum of even no. dated 14/01/2021 and correct name of the selected candidate i.e. "Nabagopal Kalindi" was intimated to the applicant/ appellant. However, as the selection letter was dispatched to the selected candidate through ordinary post, details of disposal for the same was not available for supply.
In respect of point no.3, guideline(s) of directorate as requested by the applicant/ appellant was not available in material form, hence could not be supplied.3
In respect of point no.4, copy of note-sheet regarding selection of Mail Overseer from applied candidate was duly supplied vide this office letter of even no. dated 22.01.2021 on receipt of admissible document charges from the applicant/appellant on 19/01/2021.
In respect of point no.5 it was rightly informed that no junior was selected formally depriving senior, thus supply of any order copy in this regard does not arise.
In respect of point no.6 copy of letter issued by 'Posts, Adra Sub Division was supplied vide this office letter of even no. dated 22.01.2021 on receipt of admissible document charges from the applicant/appellant on 19/01/2021.
From above, it's evident that all available and admissible information/documents were duly supplied to the applicant/ appellant with right intent, there has been no case of denial or suppression of information, fully or partially. Thus, cause of calling the said information as not satisfactory by the applicant/appellant is not understood.
As regard, information in respect of Utpal Mahato and Apurba Mand Il performing duties of Mail Overseers of Adra Sub Division, it was actually not due for supply, at the referred RTI application was regarding regular selection with option call against vacant post of mail overseer for Adra Sub Division, whereas, Sri Mahato and Mandal were not regularly selected to the said posts but were attached on fully temporary basis till selection of a regularly selected incumbent through option call. However, Sri Apurba Mandal is senior to Sri Biren Chandra De. Further, temporary attachment of Sri Utpal Mahato has since been vacated and Sri Biren Chandra De (applicant /appellant) has been selected and joined as Overseer Mails, Adra Sub Division. Thus, there has neither been any case of ignoring seniority list or ignoring selection process in this regard.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and in furtherance of hearing proceedings that the information sought by the Appellant regarding the records of selected candidates contains elements of personal information of third parties which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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 4 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 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..."
However, by ignoring the above said aspect, the CPIO has erred in providing personal details of other selected candidates without seeking their consent under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI Applications in future and always follow due process of law as envisaged under RTI Act, before parting with any third party's personal information which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5