Central Information Commission
Govind Ahirvar vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai ... on 31 October, 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/CUSCZ/A/2021/654459
Govind Ahirvar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Chief
Commissioner of Customs
(General), Chennai, Custom
House, No. 60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/10/2022
Date of Decision : 31/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 04/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 05/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 01/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/11/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 09.09.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "kindly provide noting and minutes of DPC folder for the grade of Appraiser against the order No. 214/2020.1
2. How many Appraiser vacancies created in 2020 for Preventive Office category wise.
3.Shri. Narendra Babu S. (SC Category) Appraiser was promoted to AC vide CBIC order 156/2020 in Dec 2020 due to that that one Appraiser vacancy for was created for Preventive office who belongs to SC category. who has promoted against Shri. Narendra Babu S. (SC Category) vacancy."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 04.10.2021 stating as follows:-
Point 2: 6 posts of Appraisers arose in 2020 for Preventive Officers out of which NIL is earmarked for SC, & Nil earmarked for ST.
Rejected Information :-Points 1 & 3: There is no larger public interest appears to be involved in seeking such information as the notings / proposals of promotions have already been approved by DPC and had culminated in the issuance of promotion order for those officers who have been found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee and already mechanism is in place to redress the grievance arising out of such orders or DPC, which does not have any leverage of affect / effect to a strange RTI applicant, for any question of larger public interest under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. Rejected reason:-
Section 8(1)(e)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2021. FAA's order dated 01.11.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO and observed as under:
"a. The reply submitted to point No. 1 & 3 of the RTI application dated 08.09.2021 are reiterated in as much as the promotions have already been approved by DPC and had culminated in the issuance of promotion order dated 31.12.2020, for those officers who have been found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee as per due vacancies allocated for various feeder cadres.
b. The information provided under Point No.2 i.e "How many Appraiser vacancies created in 2020 for Preventive Officer Category wise". The reply "6 posts of Appraisers arose in 2020 for Preventive Officers out of which "NIL' earmarked for SC and "NIL" earmarked for "ST". However, out of the above said 6 vacancies, 5
-- UR and 1 -- SC officer was promoted; the said SC officer has been promoted 2 under UR vacancy on merit. The reply dated 10.06.2021 indicates the said promoted split up; hence there is no contrary reply in this regard.
c. From the total No. of vacancies in the subject DPC dated 31.12.2020, as per the 20 point roster for EO, PO & OS, 6 vacancies were allotted to Preventive Officer. Further, as per Post Based Roaster 'NIL' vacancies were allotted to "Sc", 'NIL' vacancies were allotted to "ST" in respect of PO Quota. Though 6 Nos. of Appraisers were promoted and 1 went on VRS from PO Quota during the year 2020, the resultant total vacancy has to be calculated as per the percentage allocated to the different feeder cadres out of the total vacancies and not as per the number of vacancies that arose in a particular cadre."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Ranjith Santhakumar, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant reiterated the grounds of the Second Appeal stating as under:
1. In the similar RTI reply filed by Shri. Aniket Bhargav on 07.01.2021 C.P.I.O has replied vide point no. 4 that 4 vacancies arose for Preventive officer quota (SC-
1/UR-3) consequent to Promotion of 20 Appraisers to Assistant Commissioner vide CBIC order No. 156/2020 dated 24.12.2020.
2. In the reply to RTI filed by me on 16.05.2021 C.P.I.O has replied the list Appraiser who had been promoted to Assistant Commissioner from Appraiser (Preventive Officer) vide CBIC order No. 156/2020 dated 24.12.2020. Out of 6 Appraiser Shri. Narendra Babu S (PO, SC) was also promoted to Assistant Commissioner; hence one Appraiser was created for Preventive Officer (SC candidate).
The CPIO submitted that the necessary clarification regarding the anomaly found by the Appellant in the number of vacancy informed to him has been aptly clarified by the FAA and further disclosure of the information on points 1 & 3 of the RTI Application entails third party information.
3Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant stated that he was also a candidate for the averred vacancy under SC category.
The CPIO submitted that he will need to ascertain the availability of information, if any, in terms of whether the name of the Appellant figures in the relevant DPC records.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the primary grouse of the Appellant is to contest the factual merits of the information provided on point no.2 of the RTI Application as well as to challenge the promotion of Narendra Babu, while adjudication on both of these aspects is outside the purview of the RTI Act. Here, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 4 Further, as regards the denial of the DPC records related to other candidates as well as the information sought for at point no.3 is concerned, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is applicable for the denial of these records as it may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of third parties. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(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, the 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 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 5 conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, since the Appellant has claimed that he was also an eligible candidate in the averred DPC, the CPIO is directed to ascertain the factual position and provide if any information related to the Appellant's candidature is available in the DPC records. The said information as per availability shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant after suitably invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act, which allows for redaction of exempted records. In the event that no record is available with respect to the Appellant's candidature corresponding to point no.1 of the RTI Application, a categorical reply to this effect shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO 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 (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 / 6