Central Information Commission
Harish Chugh vs University Grants Commission on 14 September, 2018
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/UGCOM/A/2017/156695-BJ
Mr. Harish Chugh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision : 14.09.2018
Date of RTI application 27.02.2017
CPIO's response 15.03.2017
24.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 23.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 04.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of Banasthali Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan, whether Ph.D in Computer Science offered by the University was through Regular or Part Time mode during the last 3 years, certified list of all candidates who had completed Ph.D (Computer Science) in the year 2016 along with their course work attendance, research paper details etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 15.03.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for point 02, the application was transferred to Banasthali Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan for further necessary action. Subsequently, the Under Secretary vide letter dated 24.04.2017 enclosed a copy of reply dated 30.03.2017 received from Offg. Secretary, Banasthali University (deemed to be University), Rajasthan. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.07.2017, stated that the UGC had Page 1 of 4 transferred the original RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, in the event of non-receipt of information, it was suggested to approach the concerned First Appellate Authority of the University.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chugh through VC;
Respondent: Mrs. Kundla Mahajan, PIO / US (CPP-I); and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no satisfactory response was received by him in the matter. Explaining that point no. 02 of the RTI application was transferred to Banasthali University, the Appellant submitted that no response was given by the said University on the ground that it did not fall within the purview of the definition of "Public Authority" u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent stated that a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant vide their letters dated 15.03.2017 and 04.07.2017 providing information on point no. 01. However, point no. 02 was transferred to the said University on the ground that it related more closely to their jurisdiction. On being queried regarding the larger public interest involved in the matter, the Appellant alleged certain irregularities in the conduct of coursework by the said University.
Having heard both the parties, the Commission observed that in point no. 02, the Appellant sought information regarding all candidates who completed Ph. D (Computer Science) in the year 2016, their course work attendance, guide details, their research paper details and the mode of their study (part time/ full time), etc which was essentially personal information relating to third parties.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."Page 2 of 4
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. 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. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
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. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 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."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per Page 3 of 4 this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible."
In Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.
However considering the allegations raised by the Appellant, it was felt that beyond the scope of RTI Act, 2005 an inquiry ought to be conducted in the matter to ascertain the factual position pertaining to Appellant's allegations regarding irregularity in award of Ph. D (Computer Science) Degrees.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Commission would however recommend the Secretary, UGC to inquire into the allegations made by the Appellant and take suitable necessary action, if so required.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 14.09.2018
Copy to:
1. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO, Metro Gate No. 3, New Delhi-110002 Page 4 of 4