Central Information Commission
Syed Shabbir Hussain vs University Of Allahabad on 29 May, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2019/600258/03579
File nos.: (As per annexure)
In the matter of:
Syed Shabbir Hussain
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University of Allahabad
Senate House, University Road,
Old Katra, Prayagraj- 211 002, Uttar Pradesh
...Respondent
Date of hearing : 27.05.2020
Date of decision : 27.05.2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First FAA's Second
filed on replied on Appeal Order on Appeal
filed on Dated
600258 13.10.18 Not on record 15.11.18 Not on record 03.01.19
600833 11.10.18 22.11.18 12.11.18 Not on record 14.01.19
638301 30.12.18 Not on record 16.02.19 Not on record 12.04.19
641941 06.01.19 Not on record 16.02.19 Not on record 21.05.19
641943 23.01.19 Not on record 05.03.19 Not on record 22.05.19
641944 13.02.19 Not on record 23.03.19 Not on record 23.05.19
641946 12.02.19 Not on record 23.03.19 Not on record 24.05.19
660145 17.09.19 Not on record 29.10.19 Not on record 17.12.19
666296 07.10.19 Not on record 16.12.19 Not on record 09.03.20
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant have been clubbed together, as these are RTI applications involving similar issues. For the sake of brevity, cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
1Information Sought:
1. File no. 600258 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copies of letters received from UGC and MHRD regarding appointment of teachers in the university. Also provide the copies of the reply sent by the university in regard to those letters.
2. Details of action taken by the university in respect of UGC letter No. F.10-6/2011(PS/Misc) dated 10/10/2018.
3. Provide inspection of all the documents related to the appointment of Asst. Professor -Urdu in S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College and provide copies of the documents selected during the inspection.
4. Provide inspection of all the documents related to the appointment of Asst. Professor -Urdu in C.M.P. Degree College and provide copies of the documents selected during the inspection.
5. And other related information.
2. File no. 600833 The appellant has sought the following information with regard to the inquiry conducted by Justice Tandon against the Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad, in the matter of Audio/ WhatsApp controversy:
1. Provide a copy of the order issued for conducting the enquiry.
2. Copies of the documents submitted to the inquiry committee by Ms. Bhumika (lady involved in the controversy).
3. Copies of the documents submitted to the inquiry committee by other persons.
4. Copy of the letter sent by the woman of Kalyani University against the Vice Chancellor.
5. And other related information.
3. File no. 638301 The appellant has sought inspection of the documents related to the degree awarded by Registrar/Jt. Registrar/Dy. Registrar as per UGC Regulations, 2009 to the D.Phil holders during 01/01/2015 to 30/12/2018 in the University of Allahabad, Urdu Department.
4. File no. 641941 The appellant has sought inspection of the documents related to the appointment of Asst. Professor - Urdu in CMP Degree College and S.S. Khanna 2 Girls Degree College in the year 2008 and provide copies of the documents selected by the appellant during the inspection.
5. File no. 641943 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Details of action taken by VC and other officials in regard to UGC letter No. 32-8(11)/2018(Public Grievance/NRCB) dated 13/04/2018 issued by UGC in the matter of irregularities in the appointment of Asstt. Professor (Urdu) in the constituent colleges of the Allahabad University. Provide copies of documents/file noting, etc. in regard to the same.
2. Provide a copy of the report submitted by the University to UGC in regard to the above mentioned letter.
3. Copy of the report sent by the University to higher authorities, such as UGC, MHRD with regard to the appointments in the constituent colleges during the last two years.
4. And other related information.
6. File no. 641944 The appellant has sought issuance of direction to the S.S Khanna Girls Degree College and CMP Degree College, to provide the appellant an inspection of the documents/files related to the appointment of Assistant Professor (Urdu) in the said colleges and to provide copies of the documents as short-listed by him during the inspection.
7. File no. 641946 The appellant has sought the details regarding the action taken on the letter of Dr. Nishat Fatima, forwarded to the Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, by UGC vide its letter No.F.35-12/2012(CU) dated 05/02/2019.
8. File no. 660145 The appellant has sought the details of marks, in all the 3 categories of assessment, viz. (i) academic record and research, (ii) domain knowledge and teaching skills and (iii) performance during interview, awarded by the Selection Committee to each of the candidate, as per the UGC Regulations, 2016, who were interviewed for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) in S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College & CMP Degree College.
9. File no. 666296 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the score-card of each candidate who appeared in the interview held for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) at S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College.
2. Provide the screening list/list of shortlisted candidates, containing names and marks obtained by the candidates who appeared in the interview held for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) at S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College.3
3. Copies of the documents submitted by the candidates who were selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) in S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College.
4. And other related information.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Dr. Shailendra Mishra, Assistant Professor and Nodal CPIO; Dr. Praveen Kumar Singh, CPIO, CMP Degree College; Dr. Ritu Jaiswal, CPIO, S.S Khanna Girls Degree College and CPIO; all present over phone Grounds for filing Second Appeal Both CPIO and FAA have not provided a reply.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had asked for information in all the above listed cases due to involvement of larger public interest. He further submitted that the information sought relates to recruitment of Assistant Professors (Urdu) of CMP College & S.S Khanna Girls College (constituent colleges-
University of Allahabad). He further elaborated the grounds for his appeal under larger public interest as follows:
(1) Prof. R.L Hangloo, VC, University of Allahabad was forced to resign from his post on 31.12.2019 by the MHRD, New Delhi to conduct enquiry against him for the allegations of irregularities in recruitment of teachers, irregularities in financial matters, corruptions, scandals etc. (2) A enquiry Committee was formed by the MHRD, New Delhi to look into the allegations against Professor R.L. Hangloo constituted of:
(a) Professor Nageshwar Rao, VC, IGNOU (Chairman)
(b) Professor P.M. Tripathi, VC, I.G.N.T.U (Member)
(c) Professor R.S Dubey, VC, Central University of Gujarat (Member).
(3) The above 3 member Committee is looking into irregularities committed by Professor R.L Hangloo in his tenure as VC of University of Allahabad including irregularities made in the recruitment of Assistant Professors in Constituent colleges at the direction of MHRD, New Delhi.4
(4) The above Committee invited complaints with proof of evidences from sufferers and other citizens.
(5) Dr. Nishat Fatma (his wife) was a candidate in both the mentioned colleges and she was a sufferer due to irregularities committed in the selections.
(6) Dr. Nishat Fatma submitted her complaint to the above Enquiry Committee on dated 17.02.2020.
(7) The Enquiry Committee invited Dr. Nishat Fatma to record her statement on 14.03.2020 at 3.00 pm (the whole process was video graphed) Furthermore, he submitted that during discussions the Enquiry Committee asked Dr. Nishat Fatma if she had any more evidences/documents of irregularities, it may be presented in their next visit to the University. The next visit of the Enquiry Committee was postponed due to lockdown.
(8) The first candidate in merit in S.S Khanna Girls College is Dr. Taheera Parveen scored 136.8 API marks and Dr. Nishat Fatma scored 210 API marks in selections at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi during the same period in which selections were made in S.S Khanna Girls College.
In the above selections the weightage for interview was only of 20% marks. As such it is unbelievable Dr. Tahira Parveen got 1st position and Dr. Nishat Fatma was nowhere in 1st three positions. This proves that irregularities were committed in the selections. The fundamental right of Dr. Nishat Fatma was breached by the selection committee. (9) Therefore it is in public interest to provide evidences to the enquiry committee to bring out the facts/truth before public for the sake of justice.
(10) The college has till date not provided marks of shortlisting, marks of selections. Every matter of selections had been kept secret, which itself smells foul.
Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct both colleges to allow inspection of records of selections and photocopies of documents desired by the applicant. The marks of screening/shortlisting of all candidates may be provided of both colleges. The marks secured by candidates, who appeared before selection committee may be provided 5 (both colleges) application forms & educational certificates of selected candidates (both colleges) may be provided.
He summed up stating that the above desired information is very much necessary to produce before the Enquiry Committee for their impartial enquiry to bring out truth and facts for the sake of justice and in larger public interest, it will be a step to cooperate with the Enquiry Committee as per direction of MHRD.
He further submitted individual comments also in respect of each of the cases, which are enumerated below:
Case no. Submissions 600258 Information was desired on points no. 1 to 5 but till date no information has been provided.
600833 In this case enquiry was against the VC and he was given clean chit by the Committee. An as such full detail of the case was required by the applicant in his RTI application on points no. 1 to 10. In the present case no information has been provided by the CPIO so far. Though the applicant has submitted his Aadhar card as identity card to the CPIO and the FAA by e-mail on 20.12.2018. The University is intentionally not providing information. He further submitted that he is well known due to his previous cases. 638301 The applicant submitted that documents submitted voluntarily by third parties cannot be treated as personal information.
641941 The selected candidates got selected on the basis of their documents therefore it is in larger public interest that their documents must be got checked/ inspected.
641943 CPIO had not provided satisfactory information on points no.
1 to 5.
641944 Inspection of documents was denied till date. 641946 Complete information not provided to the point. 660145 Marksheet of all candidates should be given. 666296 Applicant has demanded the scorecard of candidates.
6Dr. Lalima Singh, Principal, S.S Khanna Degree College submitted that in respect of appeal case No.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632396 decided on 18.09.2019 Mr. Shayad Sabbir Hussain (appellant) has already visited the CPIO office, Senate House, University of Allahabad on 04.10.2019 and inspected the documents related to recruitment in department of Urdu, S.S Khanna Degree College Prayagraj and received all the information/documents related to him (except third party information covered under u/s 8(1)(j) & u/s 11 of RTI act 2005). She submitted a copy of the acknowledgment of the appellant also in this regard.
She further submitted that the decision of this bench on 18.09.2019 regarding the RTI appeal of Mr. Syed Shabbir Hussain, 2/C, Abubakarpur, Dhoomanganj, Allahabad-211011 are as follows :
Decision of CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632769/01657:
"In view of the above, it is pertinent to mention here that the copies of documents of third parties are purely personal information of third parties which involve no longer public interest in disclosure of the information. Hence the same is treated as exempted u/s 8(1)( j) of RTI Act."
2. Decision of CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632396/01656:
"The applicant shall avail inspection of the documents and take relevant copies at a mutually decided date and time by both the parties, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The CPIO shall obliterate the personal details of the third parties, if any u/s 10 of RTI Act while giving information"
In the light of the same she further submitted that Mr. Syed Sabbir Hussain is repeatedly asking the same or similar information in the same context, which are either exempted under the RTI Act or have been already given to him in response to his previous RTI applications. During inspection of documents related to recruitment in the department of Urdu, S.S Khanna Degree College Prayagraj, Mr. Syed Sabbir Hussain denied that he has not received any reply to his RTI applications. When the number of delivery reports (Speed Post/Registered Post) of replies was presented and received by him, he stated that these replies may have been received by his other family members and they have not informed him. It clearly indicates that he repeatedly denied that he has not received any reply but in fact he has received all the replies.
7She further submitted the details of previous decisions of RTI appeal/ complaint of Mr. Syed Sabbir Hussain in the same context as mentioned below:
1. File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/637326
2. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636631
3. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636629
4. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636582
5. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636582
6. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/633326
7. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632769
8. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632396
9. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/627775
10. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/633400 She also submitted the details of previous decisions of RTI appeal/ complaint in which Mr. Syed Sabbir Hussain appeared as representative of the appellant in the same context which are as follows:
1. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/633704) of Ali Hussain
2. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632587) of Ali Hussain
3. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/629759) of Ali Hussain
4. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/627779) of Ali Hussain
5. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/626227) of Ali Hussain
6. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/625054) of Ali Hussain
7. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/623842) of Ali Hussain
8. File no.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/622118) of Ali Hussain She further pointed out that hand writing and signature of the authority letter is suspected in the above cases.
She further submitted the details of previous decision of RTI appeal/ complaint of other appellants (family member or friends of Mr. Syed Sabbir Hussain) in the same context as follows:
1. File no. CIC/UOALD/A/2018/625641 of Nishat Fatma
2. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/625194 of Nishat Fatma
3. File no.: CIC/NBTRT/A/2018/102075 of Nishat Fatma
4. File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/625636 of Mr. Meraj Ahmad
5. File no.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/625409 of Mr. Meraj Ahmad
6. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/629032 of Mr. Meraj Ahmad
7. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/627653 of Mr. Meraj Ahmad
8. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/627483 of Mr. Meraj Ahmad
9. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/627477 of Mr. Meraj Ahmad 8 She further submitted that being a Constituent College of University of Allahabad, the college is duty bound to abide by the Screening Criterion, prescribed by the University of Allahabad and on the basis of screening of applications by the Statutory Screening Committee, the list of candidates eligible for interview was prepared and candidates placed in the eligibility list were called for interview. It is strictly on the basis of the screening criterion framed by the University of Allahabad, that the academic and research scores of candidates is determined by the screening committee.
The CPIO of C.M.P College also reiterated the submission of the Principal of S.S Khanna Degree College.
Dr. Shailendra Mishra reiterated the submissions of the above CPIOs and in respect of case no. 600833 submitted that the notice of scheduled hearing was received by him during lockdown and offices in the campus are closed therefore his submission is based on the facts in memory. He submitted that after receiving the RTI application, the possible custodians of the information i.e. PA to Registrar and P.A. to Vice Chancellor had been asked to provide the information within the mandated time period. The sought for information by the applicant was pertaining to the enquiry against the then Vice Chancellor of the University who instructed (in writing) to process the RTI after receiving the identity and address proofs of the applicant. Being an employee under his command he was duty bound to do so despite being aware about the provisions of the RTI Act. The notice of the hearing of second appeal was forwarded to the custodians (through WhatsApp) who assured him to provide the available information within 7 days, once they resume their office duties and have access to the documents, after lockdown. The appellant submitted that during inspection only marks of Dr. Nishat Fatma was given and not marks of other candidates. He further submitted that without marks of other candidates it is not possible to verify whether the recruitment was done in a fair manner or not. Furthermore, he submitted that the documents are required to enable him to produce the same before the Enquiry Committee.
Shri Shailendra Mishra, the Nodal CPIO submitted that the enquiry started in February 2020. He further added that documents shall be verified by the Enquiry Committee in due course and the appellant should wait for the enquiry to be over. He summed up stating that disclosure of any information at this 9 juncture may impede the process of enquiry and therefore no further information can be provided.
The appellant pressed for the marks of the candidates on the basis of which shortlisting was done.
Observations:
At the outset the Commission found it relevant to peruse the already decided cases of the appellant by this bench. The following are the information sought in those cases:
1. File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/637326 The appellant has sought certain information relating to journals approved by UGC for appointment to the post of Asst. Professor (Urdu).
2. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636631 The appellant has sought the following information regarding appointment to the post of Asst. Professor in Allahabad University:
1. Whether the selection committee has been constituted as per the para 5.1.4(d) of UGC Regulations, 2010 or not.
2. In case of conflict between UGC Regulations and Allahabad University Ordinances, which will prevail. Give reasons for the same.
3. And other related information.
3. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636629 The appellant has sought the following information regarding appointment of Asst. Professor of Urdu made in CMP College and SS Khanna College:
1. When Allahabad University is accepting that selection has not been done as per the rules of UGC, then as to why the appointments are not being cancelled.
2. What action has been taken by the University against the wrongful appointment. Provide copies of the action taken.
3. And other related information.
4. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/636582 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether Dr. Nafees Ahmed has ever worked as a Guest Lecturer (Urdu) in CMP College. If yes, provide details.10
2. Whether VC nominated, member of the selection committee in CMP College, was a guide of Dr. Nafees Ahmed? If yes, provide details.
3. And other related information.
5. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/633326 The appellant has sought the following information regarding the appointment of Assistant Professor (Urdu) in CMP & S.S. Khanna College:
1. Copy of the advertisement published in respect of appointment at both the above colleges.
2. Proof (containing date) regarding the uploading of interview letter on the website of both the colleges.
3. Date on which the facility for downloading the interview letter was removed from the website of both the colleges.
4. And other related information.
6. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632769 The appellant wants to inspect the documents related to the appointments made at CMP College and S.S. Khanna College. He also wants copies of certain documents selected by him during inspection.
7. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632396 The appellant wants to inspect the documents related to the appointment made to the post of Asst. Professor of Urdu at CMP College and SS Khanna College. He also wants copies of certain documents selected by him during inspection.
8. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/627775 The appellant has sought the certified copies of the application form, educational certificates and other documents submitted by Dr. Tahira Parveen, Dr. Arifa Begum and Arshiya Sarfraz for getting appointed to the post of Asst. Professor (Urdu) at Sadanlal Sanwaldas Khanna Degree College, Allahabad.
9. File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/633400 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the parawise details of the action taken on the appellant's complaint dated 08/03/2018 forwarded by UGC vide F No. 32-
8(11)/2018 (Public Grievance/NRCB) dated 13/04/2018 to Allahabad University.
2. Provide the details of action taken on UGC's letter dated 13/04/2018.
113. Provide the details of action taken on UGC's letter dated 23/04/2018
4. And other related information.
After perusing the above case records which was decided by the Commission on 18.09.2019, the Commission also took note of the fact that the appellant also used to appear as representative in cases of other applicants where the issue is either the same or similar and also filed applications in the name of his wife. In view of this, his attention is drawn to a decision of the Coordinate bench in the matter of R.P Verma vs Indian Ordinance Factories decision dated 05.09.2018 where it was held as under:
"While concurring with the opinion of the CPIO, Commission remarked at the numerous Appeals of the Appellant heard in the past concerning the same issue of his promotion. It is irksome to note that the series of filing RTI Applications is not limited to the Appellant but he has got his wife (Vimla Verma) and daughter (Neha Verma) also to file RTI Applications and subsequent Second Appeals on his behalf. This bench has till date heard more than a dozen of Appeals cumulatively of the Appellant, his wife and daughter, while more than a dozen newly registered cases of the Appellant await decision. As it appears through each of these cases, Appellant is unabashedly channeling his grievance of perceived injustice in his service matter by seeking large volumes of information spanning across several years, disclosure of which has seemingly no relevance to his case yet in a bid to clearly harass the public authority, Appellant continues the practice of misusing his right to information. The grievance of the Appellant is not of such nature which can be considered and rectified by the public authority as evident from the submission of the CPIO yet Appellant has been persistently filing these RTI Applications seeking almost similar information in different manner to merely pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request of change of trade.
Commission also upholds the decision of the CPIO to offer inspection of records in most of the cases as no amount of information will satisfy the Appellant; therefore it is prudent for him to peruse the records and identify what particular information is required by him. As for the two cases, where no reply has been provided by the CPIO, Commission condones the error on account of the repetitive filing of RTI Applications by the Appellant. "12
The Commission fully agrees with the submissions of the CPIO regarding the nature of these RTI Applications. The reliance placed by the CPIO on previous decisions of the Commission is also well founded. It is also important to mention here that the issue relating to information relating to third party was already adjudicated in a previous case no. CIC/UOALD/A/2018/632769 of the same appellant where it was held as follows:
"In view of the above, it is pertinent to mention here that the copies of documents of third parties are purely personal information of third parties which involve no larger public interest in disclosure of the information. Hence the same is treated as exempted u/s 8(1)( j) of RTI Act."
It is observed that the key issue in all these cases as summed up by the appellant himself in his written submissions dated 20.05.2020 is related to irregularities in the appointment of Assistant Professor in the Urdu department of the concerned colleges and his personal grievance is that though his wife had scored high marks in a similar interview at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi during the same period, she was not even in the top three in the merit list of C.M.P College and S.S Khanna Degree College. In this regard the appellant informed that an Enquiry Committee has already been set up as per the directions of the Ministry of HRD which is presently looking into these complaints of irregularities and other such related matters. From this information, it can be seen that the matter is proceeding in the right direction and the appellant has been given adequate opportunity to raise any grievance related to irregularities in appointments before the Enquiry Committee. Under these circumstances, the appellant is advised to refrain from filing any further RTI application, till the enquiry is over as it would amount to repetition and would unnecessarily exhaust the resources of the public authority. Needless to point out that this independent Enquiry Committee will be considering all the facts and documents put before them including any evidence and documents submitted by the appellant and his wife before the said Committee. In so far as the RTI Act is concerned, the marks relating to third parties are personal information of third parties and exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is important to mention here that these kinds of RTI applications are a complete misuse of the provisions of the Act and in the garb of seeking information the appellant is trying to redress his personal grievance related to his wife not having been selected for the post of Assistant Professor. This 13 shows that the information sought is purely for personal purposes of a grievance he is nurturing and has no larger public interest. Moreover, if there are indeed any irregularities in the appointments, the fact now is that there is an Enquiry Committee set up who are looking into the matter and will come out with their report once the enquiry is over. It is also important to mention that providing replies to so many similar RTI applications amounts to harassment of the public authority and hinders the core function of the public authority.
Moreover, it cannot be expected that the public authority should drain their resources by focussing and answering frequent and similar RTI applications from the same appellant which would deprive other citizens of their RTIs being responded to. The appellant is also exhausting the other fora available such as approaching UGC and Department of Higher Education with similar queries. The Commission also observed that the nature of these RTI applications are in the nature of repetition of similar issues. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his right to Information as being absolute and unconditional and is rather resorting to misuse of this Act to settle his personal grievance against the respondent authorities. In this context, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely on the following decisions:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] held that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are givento other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI 14 Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if 15 witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
In the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the University of Allahabad and the concerned Colleges, if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is undoubtedly misuse and it has to be checked. He cannot use the RTI route to satisfy his personal vengeance, by flooding the public authority with numerous RTIs on the same or similar issues.
Decision:
The Commission has clubbed the above referred matters for adjudication as the subject matter of all these second appeals pertain to the same grievance of the appellant. The nature of queries in all of these matters is such that largely seeks information regarding recruitment of Assistant Professor. These Appeals reveal that the appellant in the garb of seeking information is flooding the public authority with similar RTI applications. The earlier bench of the Commission in a similar case of a different party in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002319-SA held as follows:
"16. Filing of multiple RTI on the same subject creates fear among the public authority. The feel tormented by such disgruntled/ retired employees consuming through RTI their precious resource apart from causing mental agony...."
A coordinate bench of the Commission in the matter of Ex MWO S P Bajpai vs CPIO, Dept of Personal Services vide decision dated 24.10.2018 held as follows:
"Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, it is established well beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant is in a habit of misusing his right to information. Commission advises the 16 Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future. CPIO is advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the subject of grant of Honorary Commission or anything related to service related grievance emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission."
Therefore, without commenting on the merits of each of the appeals, the Commission deems it appropriate to dismiss these appeals. The Commission hereby rejects all contentions of the appellant and orders no relief in the matter. From the averments of the appellant, it is rather apparent that his only intention was to harass the public authority as well as to waste the time and resources of the Commission. He is further cautioned to refrain from filing such RTI applications on the same subject matter again and again. In case any such repeated second appeal or complaint is filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine. The Appellant is advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of the RTI Act in future. The CPIOs are advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the subject of recruitment of Assistant Professor or any similar issue emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission. As for the cases where no reply has been provided by the CPIO, the Commission condones this failure on account of the repetitive filing of RTI Applications by the appellant.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Annexure S.No. File NO.
CIC/UOALD/A/2019/600258 1 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/600833 2 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/638301 3 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/641941 4 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/641943 5 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/641944 6 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/641946 7 CIC/UOALD/A/2019/660145 8 CIC/UOALD/A/2020/666296 9 17 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 18 19