Central Information Commission
Prem Prakash Singh vs Department Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 12 April, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DOSIR/A/2021/100171
In the matter of
Prem Prakash Singh
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
CSIR Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
Barwa Road, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826015
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2020 CPIO replied on : 19/10/2020 First appeal filed on : 30/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 27/11/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 27/12/2020 Date of Hearing : 11/04/2022 Date of Decision : 11/04/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC alongwith Tara Nand Singh Respondent: Dr. Pankaj Mishra, Sr Principal Scientist and CPIO, present over VC alongwith Kumar Rahul, Administrative Officer Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
-Provide the names of members of the Screening and Selection Committees and their full postal address with respect to Advertisement No. CIMFR-04/2017, who were responsible for the selection of Shri A.J.K. Singh as Security Officer.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant's representative submitted that it was a case of corruption, security personnel was removed after CVC enquiring on his complaint, therefore, names of members of the Screening and Selection Committees should be given who were responsible for the irregular appointment. The CPIO vide written submissions dated 03.03.2022 submitted that the RTI application was received on 06.10.2020. Moreover, the application was marked to the Administrative Office, CSIR-CIMFR on 06.10.2020 u/s 5(4) and 5(5) for collecting information sought by the appellant. That a reminder for collecting the information of the appellant was sent to the Administrative Officer, CSIR-CIMFR dated 13.10.2020. He further submitted that the reply was sent to the appellant on 19.10.2020 by the CPIO as given by the Administrative Officer, CSIR-CIMFR, stating that "it seems that the information has been sought in personal interest not in any larger public interest. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant may not be provided u/s 8(1)(e) and (g) of the RTI Act.
Further the first appeal of the appellant was received on 02.11.2020. The FAA has sent a reply to the appellant on 01.12.2020 stating that "Committees formed for screening and selection were as per rule. However, the names of the members cannot be disclosed because few of the members may also attend future screening and selection committees and declaration of names may hamper the purpose of the committee.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 19.10.2020 enclosed the reply dated 16.10.2020 of the Custodian. It was mentioned by the CPIO in that reply that the information sought does not seem to be in public interest, hence the desired information may be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was also mentioned that the information sought may not be provided u/s 8(1)(e) and (g) of the RTI Act.
The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2020 disposed of the first appeal and provided a detailed observation regarding the first appeal and addressed the objections of the appellant. He further held that committees formed for screening and selection committee were as per rule. However, the names of the members cannot be disclosed because few of the members may also attend future 2 screening and selection committees and declaration of names may hamper the purpose and clarity of the committees.
Decision:
The Commission observed that the names of the Committee members cannot be disclosed as the same is exempted u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Moreover, their full postal address is personal information in nature and exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant failed to indicate the grounds of appeal in his second appeal. Moreover, removal of a security personnel after CVC's enquiry does not qualify as a ground for providing details of the selection committee members. Therefore , no further action is called for.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3