Central Information Commission
Surendra Kumar vs Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium ... on 25 June, 2019
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 ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MMSME/A/2017/174177
Surendra Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
... ितवादी/Respondent
CPIO, M/o. MSME, Process and
Product Development Centre, Agra,
U.P.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01-06-2017 FA : Undated SA: 27-10-2017
CPIO : 01-07-2017 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 24-06-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. MSME, Process and Product Development Centre, Agra seeking certified copies of the educational qualification certificates of Mr. Abhinav Verma, Mr. Mohan Singh, Mr. Bharat Paliwal and Mr. Gopal Krishna Saraswat, including, inter-alia, their appointment details.
2. The CPIO responded on 01-07-2017. The appellant filed an undated first appeal which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 15-09-2017. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO(s) u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Page 1 of 4Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Surendra Kumar attended the hearing in person. Mr. Raj Kumar Kunti, Assistant Director, Mr. R. Panneerselvam, Principal Director and Mr. Sharad Kumar, Office Superintendent participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the sought for information.
5. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is a third party information exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and there is no involvement of any public interest in the matter. Therefore, they cannot provide the sought for information to the appellant. However, some of the information which could be given to the appellant under the RTI Act, 2005 has already been provided to him vide their letter dated 01-07-2017. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
6. This Commission observed that the educational qualification certificates of some other employees held by the public authority in a fiduciary relationship is exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) r/w Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also, there is no public interest in the matter. Therefore, this information cannot be provided to the appellant. This position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 06.08.2013 passed in the Civil Appeal No. 6362/2012, arising out of SLP No.16870 of 2012 titled as UPSC v. Gourhari Kamila. Further, this Commission observed that the appointment details of some other employees which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of the order dated 31.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court India in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 titled as Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam & Anr., wherein it was observed as under:-
"5. ...This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc.
12. In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Page 2 of 4 Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R. K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.
15. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.
16. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected."
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 24-06-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO, M/o. MSME, DY. Director & PIO, Process and Product Development Centre, Foundry Nagar, Distt -Agra, UP- 282006.
2. Shri. Surendra Kumar, Page 4 of 4