Central Information Commission
Ananda Bakshi vs Union Public Service Commission on 24 February, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : . CIC/UPSCM/A/2019/639229
ANANDA BAKSHI अपीलकता /Appellant
.....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
US, EIA(I), UNION PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, RTI CELL,
DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN
ROAD, NEW DELHI -110069. ...... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/02/2021
Date of Decision : 24/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/02/2019
CPIO replied on : 25/02/2019
First appeal filed on : 09/03/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 02/04/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/04/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 10.02.2019 seeking information on following sixteen points:-
"1. Provide the list of names with official identity of the invigilators deployed on 03/02/2019.
2. Provide a copy of HANDBOOK FOR SUPERVISORS for CDS Exam I, 2019 alongwith guidelines for distribution of remunerations and appointing invigilators.
3. Provide copy of the receipt voucher of advance money (to conduct the Exam) collected by the venue supervisor from the coordinating supervisor for CDS Exam I, 2019.
4. Provide the expenditure statement of this venue in respect of advance money for conducting this exam along with all supporting vouchers.
5. Provide acquaintance roll of all functionaries including invigilators appointed in this exam venue (Centre 06 Kolkata, Sub Centre Code 023) for CDS Exam I, 2019.
6. Provide copy of NO RELATION CERTIFICATES and list of invigilators assigned room wise for both the sessions separately.
7. Mention the number of total available permanent teaching staffs of this venue who draw salary from Govt of WB.
8. Provide the list of willing permanent teaching staffs for invigilation duty in CDS Exam I, 2019.
9. Whether the willing permanent teaching staffs of this venue were invited to perform invigilation duty in their own institution issuing a notice by the Venue supervisor/ coordinating supervisor of WBPSC/UPSC yes or No.
10. Mention the clear eligibility criteria of invigilators deployed by the Non Delhi venue supervisors directly in CDS Exam 1, 2019 conducted by the UPSC.
11. Whether any retired school teacher (from a State Govt. sponsored high school) can be deployed for this purpose or not.
12. Whether a venue supervisor can deploy any invigilator from outside of his institution in his venue avoiding deployment of willing experienced teachers of his own institution or not. (Yes/No).
13. Whether the venue supervisor can deploy invigilators from anywhere without issuing a notice to his own internal staffs or without giving them a chance to be assigned in this duty. Yes/No. 2
14. Provide the attendance sheet of invigilators/functionaries for briefing programme on the day before Exam i.e. on 02/02/2019.
15. Whether any PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER under Govt. of WB can be hired and assigned as invigilators in this exam. (yes/No.).
16. Whether UPSC has any bar to conduct their competitive public exams in a blacklisted venue under a debarred supervisor (by the Dept of P&T, Govt.
of India with Memo. No C 13019/1/2017 Admn./3972 to 74 Dated 09.08.2018.), YES/NO."
The CPIO denied information to the Appellant on 25.02.2019 under section 8(1)
(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2019. FAA's order dated 02.04.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: S.S Rawat, US & CPIO and Bhupendra Joshi, ASO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information as he has sought for the same to address a corruption issue.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has sought for such information which is concerned with the communications between the supervisors and the UPSC and is therefore deemed as confidential.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the blanket denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is grossly inappropriate particularly in the absence of any reasoning provided in the CPIO's 3 reply to this effect or even during the hearing. Moreover, none of the queries in the RTI Application appear to have a bearing on commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property of any third party as espoused in Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO rather harped on the aspect of confidentiality during the hearing for justifying the denial of the information to the Appellant, without specifying the exemption clause of the RTI Act being relied upon by him.
Nonetheless, the Commission has scrutinized the RTI Application and finds that most of the queries therein are not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for answers in Yes or No form which requires the CPIO to provide his opinion or draw inferences. Similarly, the information sought for at points no. 1,5,8,6 & 14 seek service related information of third parties which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply to only points no.2, 3, 4, 7 & 10 of the RTI Application to the Appellant incorporating the available and relevant information, free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event that the information sought for at any of these points is not available in the records, a categorical statement to this effect shall be stated in the CPIO's reply against that point. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.4
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5