Central Information Commission
H G Swamy vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 15 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184856 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180181
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184850 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180188
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184851 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180189
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184852 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180190
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184853 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180228
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184854 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180230
F. No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2017/184855 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180231
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163041 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180233
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163042 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180227
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163043 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180224
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163052 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180216
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163347 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180219
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180185 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180218
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180180 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180225
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180183 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180226
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180235
Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018
Date of Decision : 27.02.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. H G Swamy
Respondent : PIO
Under Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Through:- Mrs. Chandramati T-
CPIO ; Dr. Shekhar- FAA/Registrar
and Sh. P K Singh - MoH&FW
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
184856 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
184850 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
184851 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
184852 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
184853 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
184854 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
184855 04.11.2017 16.11.2017 15.12.2017 -
Page 1 of 10
163041 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
163042 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
163043 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
163052 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
163347 17.07.2017 NIL 17.08.2017 21.08.2017
180185 01.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180180 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180183 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180181 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180188 01.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180189 17.08.2017 24.08.2017 01.09.2017 16.09.2017
180190 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180228 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
180230 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
180231 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
180233 11.07.2017 10.08.2017 10.08.2017 21.08.2017
180227 17.07.2017 10.08.2017 17.08.2017 21.08.2017
180224 01.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180216 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180219 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180218 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180225 01.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
180226 17.08.2017 24.08.2017 01.09.2017 16.09.2017
180235 05.09.2017 16.09.2017 26.09.2017 - -
Since the parties in all of the above cases are common, the matters are
clubbed for the purpose of effective adjudication.
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant filed multiple RTI applications with National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences regarding recruitment of Assistant Professor in Human Genetics, NIMHANS under advertisements dated 17.08.2016, 05.01.2016, 14.06.2017, 18.12.2014. He also sought documents/records/office notes/information pertaining to the complaints received by different offices of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in connection with the selection of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics and in any other departments at NIMHANS.
In response to RTI applications dated 01.11.2017, Nodal Officer (In- Charge)/Under Secretary vide letter dated 16.11.2017, replied as under:-
"................RTI application is related to Mental Health Section of this Ministry to whom your above mentioned RTI application were sent, Page 2 of 10 but the same have been returned by them to the RTI Cell with the remarks that they have already replied on the issue raised in these RTI application earlier (copy enclosed). With regard to your request to provide the information from the office of the Minsters and Senior Officers of the Ministry, it is informed that no CPIs have been notified specifically for these offices except the office of Health & Family Welfare Minister (HFM). It is also informed that all the documents received in the offices of Ministers and Senior Officers are ultimately sent to the Section dealing with the subject which acts as the repository of information - in this case, the Mental Health Section which has already responded on the issue raised, and no purpose would be served by transferring these applications to that Section /CPIO again."
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not received information, the appellant approached the Commission.
F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163041 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163042 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163043 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163052 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180228 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180230 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180231 F. No. CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180233 In response to RTI applications 11.07.2017, Asst. Administrative Officer (Per) & CPIO, NIMHANS furnished the information against each query vide letter dated 10.08.2017. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA vide letter dated 21.08.2017 informed that information had already been provided to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved on non receipt of information within specified period, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/163347 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180227 In response to RTI application, PIO/Asst. Administrative Officer (Per), NIMHANS in response to query no. 1 furnished the copy of advertisement and denied information against queries no. 2 & 4 seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and (g) of the RTI Act. On query no. 3 information, PIO replied that information sought is too general and vague. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA vide letter dated 21.08.2017 informed that Page 3 of 10 information had already been provided to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved on non receipt of information within specified period, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180185 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180224 In response to RTI application dated 01.09.2017, the CPIO/Administrative Office I/C & CPIO, NIMHANS furnished information as under:-
1. For all the 14 eligible candidate we have sent interview letter by speed post. Out of 14 eligible candidates 10 candidates had furnished the email ID in the application from whereas other 4 has not furnished the email ID in the application form submitted to this Institute.
2. The information sought is exempted under RTI act 2005 Section 8(1)(d).
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180180 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180216 In response to RTI application dated 05.09.2017, the CPIO/Administrative Office I/C furnished information as under:-
1. The information sought is exempted under RTI act 2005 Section 8(1)(d).
2. No communication has been corresponded with the Ministry with regard to Dr. Mathivanan Jothi.
3. The information contains 9 no of pages. On receipt of Rs. 18 (per page Rs. 2) the copies will be provided.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180183 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180219 In response to RTI application dated 05.09.2017, the CPIO/Administrative Office I/C furnished information as under:-
1. Dr. Gautham Arunachal. M has been selected for the post of Asst.
Prof. in Human Genetics.
Page 4 of 102. The information sought is exempted under RTI act 2005 Section 8(1)(d).
3. Appointment order yet to be issued.
4. Not applicable Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180181 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180218 In response to RTI application dated 05.09.2017, the CPIO/Administrative Office I/C, NIMHANS furnished information as under:-
1. None of the faculties who joined against the notifications dated
05.01.2016 & 17.08.2016 have resigned.
2. None of the faculties have been terminated.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180188 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180225 In response to RTI application dated 01.09.2017, the CPIO/Administrative Office I/C furnished information as under:-
1,3, 5 & 6- The information sought is exempted under RTI act 2005 Sec 8(1)(d).
2- No. of candidate applied -25, No of candidate called for interview - 14, No of candidate appeared for interview-10.
4- Purely on the performance of the eligible candidate who appeared before the selection committee.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180189 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180226 In response to RTI application dated 17.08.2017, the CPIO/Asst. Administrative Officer (Per) furnished information as under:-Page 5 of 10
1. As per the Cadre & Recruitment Rules of this Institute short listing of candidates were done.
2. 14 number where shortlisted. However, the details sought with regard to list of candidates is exempted under RTI Act 2005 Sec 8 (1)(d) and
(g).
3. 10 number where rejected. However, the details sought with regard to list of candidates is exempted under RTI Act 2005 Sec 8 (1)(d) and (g).
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/A/2017/180190 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180235 In response to RTI application dated 05.09.2017, the CPIO/Asst. Administrative Officer I/C vide letter dated 16.09.2017 informed on point no. 1 about the candidate selected by the Selection Committee for the Post of Various Faculties. On point no. 2 Interviews for 11 department was held on 30.08.2017 and 31.08.2017 and point no. 3 is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not got the opportunity for inspection, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
1. Both parties are present during the hearing. The Appellant commences his arguments stating that he filed 12 RTI applications seeking inspection of all records from the Director, NIMHANS with respect to the appointment of Asst. Prof, Genetics. He complains that not only was the inspection denied to him but the information was denied as well quoting irrelevant and incorrect sections and provisions of law. He further avers that notice of the hearing of First Appeal was never sent and hence he was not a part of the hearing of the FAA. The FAs were thus handled most inappropriately, as per the applicant. The appellant expresses his objection to the denial of information citing incorrect and irrelevant provisions of law viz. Section 8(1)(d) and (g) of the RTI Act, which have no applicability in respect of the information sought by the appellant.Page 6 of 10
2. During the course of his arguments, the appellant states that while list of candidates who appeared for the interview was duly provided to the candidates who attended the interview, the same information had been wrongfully denied to the appellant. Hence, the applicant had filed the Complaints aggrieved by the inaction of the CPIO and denial of information incorrectly by the Respondent.
3. Concluding his submissions, the appellant stated that he seeks disclosure of all information and inspection of all the documents in respect of the appointment/selection of the Assistant Professor, Human Genetics, NIMHANS through the Second appeals.
4. Respondent from MOHFW was present during the hearing and submitted his written statement explaining that all the queries in the RTI applications related to NIMHANS and hence they had been transferred timely to NIMHANS to be addressed and answered appropriately.
5. Respondent-PIO from NIMHANS contended that 5+6, totalling eleven RTI applications were received by them and all available information has been duly furnished including the relevant annexures, advertisements, all papers related to selection as sought by the appellant, barring only those information which were denied under Section 8(1)(d) and (g), since they related to the personal details of the candidates. The Respondent further averred that though the appellant was given repeated opportunities to inspect the records, appellant did not turn up for the inspection and instead keeps filing repeated RTI applications despite information having been provided. Respondent has placed on record written submissions providing the details of information furnished so far to the appellant alongwith copies of the said replies. It has also been contended by the Respondent NIMHANS that FAA had duly adjudicated the First Appeals
6. Perusal of each of the appeal indicates that response has been given in each of the case. However, the appellant despite being provided with the information and also inspection of records, is still dissatisfied with the information received.Page 7 of 10
Decision:
7. Considering the facts of the case, the Commission notes that while information has been adequately furnished to the appellant already, he is still dissatisfied. Despite deliberations during hearing, the Commission is still unable to understand real reason behind his queries. It is also noted that though the queries were related to NIMHANS, the appellant has marked nine RTI applications needlessly to the MoHFW, thereby dragging the Ministry into an unnecessary, irrelevant and wasteful exercise.
8. After perusal of records and considering the contentions of the parties, the Commission notes that though the appellant has been persistent in seeking information, he has not specified which particular information has been denied to him. Despite enquiring during the hearing, the appellant was unable to clarify the cause of dissatisfaction. It is further noted that though the appellant has sought such multitude of queries from the NIMHANS and even filed several complaints, no particular reason has been assigned for the same nor has he stated any public interest being served by these queries.
Under the circumstances, the Commission holds that in addition to the information already provided, inspection of files, as allowed earlier by the FAA, shall be provided to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. The appellant is granted liberty one last time to inspect and obtain the information, as desired by him. Copies of information identified by the appellant shall be provided to him by the Respondent upon payment of the prescribed fees. It is made clear that no further query on the similar subject matter shall be entertained from the appellant after this inspection of records.
9. Before concluding the matter at hand, the Commission finds it pertinent to make a note in so far as selection process is concerned, once the experts from a public authority have taken a view that the disclosure of information would compromise the selection process, this Commission is not inclined to interfere therewith. Reference in this regard may also be made to the dicta in Sanchit Bansal v. The Joint Admission Board [(JAB)[(2012) 1 SCC 157] observing that:
"... the process of evaluation and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical Page 8 of 10 matters in academic field and Courts will not interfere in such processes..."
10. Reference is drawn of another case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27] it was observed thus:
"...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them..."
11. The Courts also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy, selection process or an issue involving academic matter, the courts generally refrain from interfering therein. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education or selection process the courts will step in.
12. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"..Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review?
Based on the ratio propounded in the decisions above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further action is required to be taken in these cases, wherein the selection process of Assistant Professor in Human Genetics, NIMHANS have been put under scanner by the appellant's RTI queries. Information as available has already been provided, and one last opportunity of Page 9 of 10 inspection of all related files has also been allowed in the paragraph 8 above. The Commission is certain that any further disclosure of information sought in the present batch of appeals is not in line with the object of the RTI Act, 2005 which aims at 'setting out a practice regime of right to information'.
The cases are disposed of as such.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 10 of 10