Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar vs Jamia Millia Islamia on 13 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667740+
CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667739+
CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667737+
CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667736
Dr. Rajesh Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Jamia Millia Islamia, RTI
Cell, Maulana Mohammad Ali
Jauhar Marg, New Delhi-
110025. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/09/2021
Date of Decision : 09/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these
pertain to the same subject matter.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI applications filed on : 30/11/2019, 30/11/2019,30/11/2019 &
30/11/2019
CPIO replied on : 19/12/2019, 19/12/2019, 19/12/2019 &
19/12/2019
1
First appeals filed on : 08/01/2020, 08/01/2020, 08/01/2020 &
08/01/2020
First Appellate Authority : 29/01/2020, 29/01/2020, 29/01/2020 &
orders 29/01/2020
2nd Appeals/Complaints : 06/04/2020, 06/04/2020, 06/04/2020 &
dated 06/04/2020
File no. CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667740
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2019 seeking the following information on six points pertaining to a notification no. 02/2019-20 dated 17.06.2019 regarding Assistant Professor (Language & Linguistics) in Department of Teachers Training & Non-Formal Education (Institute of Advanced Studies in Education IASE), as follows;
The CPIO furnished reply to the appellant on 19.12.2019 along with requisite information against point Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 of the RTI application and with regard to 2 points Nos. 2 (partially) & 6, CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2020. FAA's order dated 29.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information against points no. 2 - 6 of RTI Application.
File no. CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667739 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2019 seeking the following information on six points pertaining to a notification no. 02/2019-20 dated 17.06.2019 regarding Assistant Professor (Pedagogy of Hindi) in Department of Teachers Training & Non-Formal Education (Institute of Advanced Studies in Education-IASE) as under ;
The CPIO furnished reply to the appellant on 19.12.2019 along with requisite information against point Nos. 1, 2(1st part), 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI application and 3 with regard to Point No. 2(2nd part) CPIO denied information under section 8(1)
(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2020. FAA's order dated 29.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information against points no. 2 - 6 of RTI Application.
File no. CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/667737 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2019 seeking the following information on six points pertaining to a notification no. 02/2019-20 dated 17.06.2019 regarding Assistant Professor (General) in Department of Teachers Training & Non-Formal Education (Institute of Advanced Studies in Education-
IASE) as under ;
The CPIO furnished reply to the appellant on 19.12.2019 along with requisite information against point Nos. 1, 2(1st part), 3 & 5 of the RTI application and with 4 regard to Point nos. 2 (2nd part) 4 & 6, CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2020. FAA's order dated 29.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information against points no. 2 - 6 of RTI Application.
File no. CIC/JAMIS/A/2020/6677376 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2019 seeking the following information on six points pertaining to a notification no. 02/2019-20 dated 17.06.2019 regarding Assistant Professor (General) in Department of Teachers Training & Non-Formal Education (Institute of Advanced Studies in Education-
IASE) as under ;
5The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.12.2019 against point Nos. 1, 3 & 5 of the RTI application and with regard to Point nos. 2, 4 & 6, CPIO denied information under section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2020. FAA's order dated 29.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information against points no. 2 - 6 of RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Shakeb Ahmad Khan, Professor & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant restricted his arguments to point no. 2 of his averred RTI Application(s) and stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that the API score of all the selected candidates has not been informed to him including his own marks as he was one of the candidates for the averred selections.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant input has already been furnished to the Appellant in response to all the RTI Applications except the information sought of other candidates which are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of RTI Act and he was informed accordingly. Further, while rebutting the contentions of the Appellant, he explained that score of the Appellant has already been informed to him in response to point no. 4.
Lastly, to a query from the Commission, the CPIO explained that although the records of candidates' interview marks are held with their office however , as per the record retention norms the records of his written exams marks have been weeded out by the Respondent office after one year of the selection.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on records observes that the information sought for against 2nd part of points no. 1, 2 and also at points no. 4, 6 5 & 6 including the marks and educational qualifications of other candidates stands exempted from disclosure under 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 of India 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 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..."
Nonetheless, the point wise reply given by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for by the Appellant in all the RTI Application(s) as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it is also noteworthy that the CPIO has erred in divulging the list of selected candidates against point no. 1 which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI Applications in future and not to divulge third party's personal information without following due process of law as per the provisions of RTI Act. Now, considering the prayer of the Appellant, the limited scope of relief lies in the information sought pertaining to his own score against the averred selection, 7 therefore, the CPIO is directed to intimate the marks of the Appellant. In the event such information is not available in their office records, a categorical statement to this effect shall be stated by the CPIO in writing. The aforesaid information shall be provided by the CPIO, free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8