Central Information Commission
Ranjeet Kumar Sinha vs Agricultural Scientists Recruitment ... on 10 May, 2023
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/AGSRB/A/2022/643291
Ranjeet Kumar Sinha ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Agricultural Scientists
Recruitment Board, RTI Cell,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-I,
Pusa, New Delhi-110012. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/05/2023
Date of Decision : 09/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 01/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 01/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2022
Second Appeal dated : 08/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"The exam was conducted on 10th may and 21st may for the post of AO & F&A0 in multiple shifts. I request you on the behalf of all candidates regarding the issue of objection on questions as asked by ASRB.1
Answer key is being not provided as per established procedure for online exam in Indian union. ASRB has simply asked to enter questions number for objection. It is not possible for human mind to simply remember all questions in online exam as along with answers questions also get submitted there.
So, I request ASRB to issue the answer key of said examination, so that we all candidates can raise objection on any questions if needed. All other online examination in India issues answer key on established standards say ssc railway icar etc. A screen shot is attached for that purpose.
I am hoping and asking from ASRB to issue answer key as that is established procedure for online exam. Please issue all candidates answer key. As all online examination in India provide answer in a very short time after examination and before result If examination include Pre and Mains and both is online separate answer key is provided in respective phases. So ASRB please give all candidates answer key."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.07.2022 stating as under:
"The exam process of AO & F&AO Examination-2021 is not over yet. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided at this stage."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 27.07.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of answer keys of all candidates.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Rual Thawmte, S.O. & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that it has already been informed to the Appellant that the exam process of AO & F&AO Examination-2021 is not yet over. Although the result of Tier I examination has since been declared on 23.09.2022; however, the interviews are yet to be concluded, hence, the information cannot be divulged to 2 the Appellant. In this regard, the Commission counselled the CPIO that even otherwise, the answer keys of all the candidates impinges on their privacy and such kind of personal information cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by him during hearing as it was found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Even otherwise, answer keys of all the candidates appeared for the AO & F&AO Examination-2021 (as sought by the Appellant) contains the elements of personal information of third party candidates which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, Xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the parties is also 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., 3 (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..."
Having observed as above and considering more particularly the absence of the Appellant during hearing to buttress his case, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) 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 / 4