Central Information Commission
Mrdebabrata Grahacharya vs Southern Railway on 4 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/VS/A/2014/002940-AB
In the matter of:
Mr. Debabrata Grahacharya
At/PO-Korua, Via- Tyendakura,
Dist.-Kendrapara, Odisha-754134. ...Appellant
Vs.
Central Public information Officer
Southern Railways
General Manager's Office,
R.T.I Cell,
Chennai-600003. ..Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 13.05.2014
CPIO reply : 15.05.2014 (Transfer) & 22.05.2014
First Appeal : 02.06.2014
FAA Order : 02.07.2014
Second Appeal : 23.09.2014
Date of hearing : 04.07.2016
Information sought:
The appellant is aggrieved as he was not considered for Group D post as he was medically unfit. He had sought copy of medical certificate of one Shri Sintu Kumar who was selected as Group D staff in 2010.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Order On the appointed date and time, the appellant was not present despite valid and timely notice. Heard the respondent CPIO Shri D.W. Samuel, Sr. Div.Personnel Officer.
During the hearing, it was submitted by the respondent PIO that apart from the fact that the RTI application dated 13.05.2014 sought copy of medical record of such a candidate, the said information was a third party information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the official whose medical record was sought under the RTI Act belonged to a different category of employees i.e. Safaiwala whereas the appellant appeared for the post of Supervisor (track maintenance) which was of higher category than the person whose medical record was sought under the RTI Act. The level of medical fitness requirement in respect of these two categories was different & hence not comparable.
The CPIO submitted during the hearing that the information was third party information which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
After perusal of record it is seen that the reply sent by the respondent to the appellant dated 22.05.2014 was proper and in time. The appellant did not avail the opportunity to appear before the Commission to contest or challenge the contention of the respondent that such disclosure was in larger public interest.
In view of the above, the matter stands closed.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K.Talapatra) Dy. Registrar 2