Central Information Commission
Shashi Kumar vs Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium ... on 10 May, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NSICL/A/2018/147041/MMSME
Shri Shashi Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Micro, Small & ... ितवादी /Respondent
Medium Enterprises, The National
Small Industries Corporation
Limited, NSIC Bhawan, Okhla
Industrial Estate, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.04.2018 FA : 16.05.2018 SA : 26.07.2018
CPIO : 04.05.2018 FAO : 13.06.2018 Hearing : 01.05.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, The National Small Industries Corporation Limited, NSIC Bhawan,Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi seeking information on eight points, including, inter-alia: "(i) How many candidates was shortlisted for the interview of Deputy Manager (Business Development) Marketing SC Category only; (ii) How many candidates from SC category to attend the Interview which held on 29.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 at various places in NSIC offices in India; (iii) what was their Page 1 of 4 educational qualification and experience in which company private/govt, they had acquired experience of marketing; (iv) Kindly supply me attested photocopies of all the schedule caste (sc) candidates educational certificate, experience certificate, caste certificate attached with their application form for their above mentioned post i.e. Deputy Manager (Bq) Marketing which had attend the interview, etc."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 16.05.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 13.06.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Ashwani Mishra attended the hearing through video-call.
4. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information on point nos. 3 and 6 of his RTI application has not been provided to him by the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that they have informed the appellant vide letter dated 04.05.2018 i.e. within stipulated period of time that the information sought by him on point no. 3 is personal information of third party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. They have further gave categorical reply on point no. 6 of his RTI application.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submission of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the appellant on point no. 3 viz. educational qualification of candidates, etc. are personal information of Page 2 of 4 third party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission referred to the case of Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain W.P.(c) No. 1243/2011, it was held by the Delhi High Court on 6th November, 2012 that 'personal information' which stands exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be disclosed unless involves a larger public interest. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union Public Service Commission v. Gourhari Kamila (Civil Appeal No. 6362 OF 2013) dated 06.08.2013, has held that 'educational certificate' of a candidate is 'personal information' and it cannot be disclosed as per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant has failed to prove the 'larger public interest' involved in the matter. The sought for information is personal in nature. Therefore, it should not be given to the appellant in view of the aforesaid case laws and the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission further observed that categorical reply has been given to the appellant on point no. 6 of the RTI application. The reply given by the respondent on point nos. 3 and 6 is satisfactory. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date:-01.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Nodal CPIO, The National Small Industries Corporation Limited, RTI Cell, N.S.I.C. Bhawan,Okhla Industrial Estate, Okhla, New Delhi - 110020.
2. Shri Shashi Kumar Page 4 of 4