Central Information Commission
Mrkannammal V vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 1 August, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001971-YA
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2014
Date of Decision : 01.08.2014
Appellant : Shri V. Kannammal,
Puducherry
Respondent : Shri Subramanieswa Rao, PIO &
Member-Secretary
Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam,
Puducherry
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant fact emerging from appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 05.04.2013
PIO replied on : 03.05.2013
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 19.06.2013
Second Appeal received on : 21.08.2013
Information sought:
The appellant had sought information regarding qualifications desirable as teaching staff and qualification of teachers currently working in the public authority. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application on 05.04.2013 seeking the above information. The PIO in his reply informed that the appellant can collect information on Point 1 on depositing requisite fee and denied information on qualification of present staff working in the public authority stating that the same is third party information and disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of concerned individuals. The FAA upheld the PIO's decision. The appellant stated that information only on Point 1 has been received. The respondent stated that since the establishment of the institute, several litigations are pending regarding appointment of teachers. The fact of the matter is that teachers were appointed in the institute without conducting any interview; those who were appointed were appointed on temporary basis and were then affiliated from Puducherry University. The PIO further stated that consent from third parties was taken and they have denied disclosure of the same. On query by the Commission as to what exactly is the nature of litigations pending due to which information cannot be provided, the respondent stated that he is not aware of the same.
The appellant stated that the PIO and FAA are the same person, which is a violation under the RTI Act. The respondent stated that due to scarcity of staff and he is the only officer appointed by the Govt. to look after the public authority, so in order to facilitate the RTI regime, he is holding the post of both PIO and FAA.
Interim Decision:
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission directs the respondent to file a written submission as to why the information on qualifications of present teaching staff cannot be provided, in addition to the nature of litigations pending for same and how it will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of concerned individuals, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
The Commission shall pass a final order on the basis of written submissions received from the respondent and fresh hearing will be fixed, if desired.
Judgement Reserved.
(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.
(Tarun Kumar) Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar