Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrbaka Gopala Rao vs Department Of Posts on 9 October, 2015

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Club Building (Near Post Office)
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                              Tel: +91-11-26101592

                                                         File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002377/8791
                                                                            09 October 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :     Mr. Baka Gopal Rao
                                            S/o Late Pandanna, Hindu, Tribal,
                                            R/o - Valasi Village & BO,
                                            Srungavarapukota(SO), Ananthagiri Mandal,
                                            Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh

Respondent                            :     CPIO / Superintendent of Post Offices
                                            Department of Post
                                            O/o Superintendent of Post Offices,
                                            Vizianagaram Postal Division,
                                            Vizianagaram - 535002

RTI application filed on              :     14/10/2013
PIO replied on                        :     26/11/2013
First appeal filed on                 :     24/12/2013
First Appellate Authority order       :     24/01/2014
Second Appeal received on             :     16/10/2014

Information sought

:

a. Particulars of Rules/Provisions of Postal Volumes and Orders for appointment of one Mr. Sunkara Jagannadha Rao, who is presently working as EDMC/DA who is son of the deceased Sunkari Satyanarayan, EDMC/DA of Kondiba BO, S. Kota SO, Vizianagaram Division on compassionate grounds and all his case relevant file documents and orders therefor.
b. Particulars of Rules/ Provisions of Postal Volumes and Orders for appointment of one Kinjeti Sarojini who is presently working as EDMC/DA who is daughter of the deceased Kinjeti Ganganna, EDMC/DA of Gumma BO, S Kota SO, Vizianagaram Division on compassionate grounds and all his case relevant file documents and orders therefor. c. Particulars of Rules/Provisions of Postal Volumes and Orders for appointment of one Dunddetu Satyavathi who is presently working as EDMC/DA who is daughter of the deceased Dunddeti Sankararao, EDMC/DA of kothavalasa BO, S Kota SO, Viziangaram Division on compassionate grounds and all his case relevant file documents and orders therefor.
d. Particulars of Rules/Provisions of Postal Volumes and Orders for appointment of one K Chinathalli who is presently working as EDMC/DA who is wife of the deceased K Narasimha Murty, EDMC/DA of Gangubudi BO, Kothavalasa SO, Vizianagaram Division on compassionate grounds and all his case relevant file documents and orders therefor, e. Particulars of Rules/ Provisions of Postal Volumes and Orders for appointments of all deceased employees' sons/daughters under your control from the year 2006 to the month Page 1 of 3 of September 2013 on compassionate grounds and all their case relevant file documents and orders therefor.
f. Particulars of Rules/Provisions of Postal Volumes etc for not considering an appointment of me as EDMC/DA or any post being a son of the deceased Baka Pandanna, EDMC/DA of Valasi BO, S Kota SO, Vizianagaram Division on compassionate grounds, having dependents two un-married sisters i.e. Susheeal, Padmajoshi and a window mother Bullamma depending on my father till his death and no proper source of incomes etc and living on coolie works at Agency area.
g. Particulars of your Departmental petitions filed for complying with the Order dated 14/12/2012 in MA No. 161/2013, O.A.No.893/13 in the Central Administrative tribunal at Hyderabad from the date of Order i.e. 14/12/2012 to the date of receipt of this petition.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Baka Gopal Rao through VC Respondent: Mr. M Murli Manohar Rao CPIO through TC M: 09490139983 The appellant stated that he wants copies of the documents submitted by the candidates who have been selected for appointment. He pointed out that his application has been rejected quoting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the ground that the "information which relates to the 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 CPIO is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure, should not be disclosed". He argued that he has a relationship with the department being the son of a deceased employee and informed that he has mentioned the fact in an application filed before the CAT. He also emphatically stated that he is not a third party.
Decision notice:
Section 2(n) of the RTI Act reads as under:
"'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
In the matter at hand the appellant is seeking copies of documents submitted by candidates who have been appointed. Thus, he is clearly seeking third party information. The fact that he is the son of a deceased employee of the department does not in any way dilute the third party's right.
A coordinate bench of this Commission in its decision dated 31/5/2006 [CIC/AT/A/2006/00072-Ajay Pal Singh V/s State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.] has held as under:
12. It is fairly obvious that information which the appellant has sought in respect of Shri S.C. Sharma, such as the latter's diploma and matriculation certificates, mark sheet and so on are in the nature of personal information about a third party. Shri Sharma might have filed these documents before the appointing authority for the purpose of seeking employment, but that is not reason enough for this information to be brought in to the public Page 2 of 3 domain to which anybody could have access. Apart from this, we don't see any public purpose which the disclosure of this information would serve.

.............................................. we concur with the conclusion of the PIO that the information requested by the appellant was personal information pertaining to Shri Sharma which served no public interest and, therefore, need not be disclosed to the appellant."

The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to matter at hand. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any larger public purpose which the disclosure of this information would serve. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.

The matter is closed.

BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3