Central Information Commission
S Manivasagam vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 14 July, 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/NHAIN/A/2021/651005
S Manivasagam ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of India,
RTI Cell, GM HR Admin, Plot No. G-5 and 6,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/07/2022
Date of Decision : 12/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 07/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 09/09/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/10/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 27.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"Applications were invited for the post of GM (IT) with the last of applications as 20.09.2016. Under the RTI Act 2005, the following information is required:
1. Copy of the Minutes of Screening committee with all annexures.
2. Copy of the Minutes of Selection Committee with all annexures.1
3. Details of applicants who did not submit required documents evidencing qualification and experience, NOC, ACR as on last date of submission.
4. List of candidates called for interview.
5. Copy of the booklet prepared by HR division and given to selection committee regarding details of applicants called for interview.
6. Copy of the attendance sheet.
7. Copy of the note noting on the file with regard to approval taken for advertising the related post and all notes in this regard till date.
8. Copy of the complete sets of application forms submitted by successful (eligible) candidates and NOC, ACR, relevant documents received at the time Applications of submission of application (last date) and till date of interview."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 07.09.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1:- The requisite information (14 page document) shall be provided to the applicant after he remits photocopying charges of 28 (Rs. 2 per A-4 size paper).
Point No. 2:- The requisite information (02 page document) shall be provided to the applicant after he remits photocopying charges of 4 (Rs. 2 per A-4 size paper).
Point No. 3:- List of candidates who applied for the said post annexed. Point No. 4:- 05 candidates called for interview.
1.Lt. Col. Shailesh Yadav
2.Col. (Retd.) Naveen Gopal
3.Sh. Kamal Kant Sharma
4.Sh. Dinesh Goyal
5.Col. Nitin Kapoor Point No. 5:- No booklet found available in the record. Point No. 6:- Not found available in record. Point No. 7:- The requisite information (20 page document) shall be provided to the applicant after he remits photocopying charges 40 (Rs. 2 per A-4 size paper).
Point No. 8:- The information sought, being a third party information, cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2021. FAA's order dated 28.09.2021 stated that the information sought for has already provided to the appellant.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of desired information against points no. 5, 6 and 8 of RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Kuldeep Singh Jamwal, GM (HR- Admn.) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Appeal has been heard together along with one more similar Second Appeal of the Appellant where he has categorically stated that he was one of the candidates who had applied for the GM (IT) post. In the instant case, the Appellant restricted his arguments to point no. 5 of RTI Application contesting the fact that a copy of the booklet prepared by the HR Division and forwarded to the Selection Committee which includes the details of candidates, has not been supplied to him till date.
The CPIO in rebuttal to the Appellant contentions explained that no such booklet as sought for was maintained by the HR Division. In response to it, the Appellant stated that he has sought for information which may be prepared/ maintained in any form and not necessarily in a booklet form, for the Selection Committee may be provided to him.
The Appellant further apprised the Bench that he is in receipt of similar information in response to his other RTI Application, therefore the information containing records of other candidates called for interview, should also be furnished by the CPIO in the instant case as well.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties is of the considered view that details of candidates in the form of booklet/ or in any form prepared by the HR Division (as sought for by the Appellant) contains the personal information of third parties which 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 3 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, upon insistence of the Appellant and considering the fact that he was also one of the candidates who had applied for the averred post, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide the relevant information prepared by the HR Division in whatever form which was forwarded to the Selection Committee, for interview/shortlisting of the candidates concerning the Appellant only after redacting the personal details of other candidates. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The above said information should 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 is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5