Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar vs Air India on 16 August, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/AIRIN/A/2017/128466
In the matter of:
Praveen Kumar
...Appellant
Vs.
The CPIO/General Manager(Pers)
Air India Limited, Airlines House,
113 Gurudwara Rakabganj road, New Delhi - 110001. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 11.01.2017
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 22.02.2017
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 25.04.2017
Date of hearing : 30.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 11.01.2017 sought information regarding the post of Sr. Executive on seven points as under:
1. Details of selected candidates who had been called for interview along with their qualifications and experiences.
2. Copies of relevant guidelines for the complete selection process for the above mentioned post.
3. Copies of recommendations of selection committee/interview panel along with the copy of the final signed result sheet.
4. Other related information.1
The CPIOs reply and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s reply are not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 25.07.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present in person
Respondent : Shri Ram Kripal,
General Manager cum CPIO
Air India Limited
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO handed over a written submissions and stated that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letters dated 25.04.2017 and 07.09.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that only an interim reply was provided to the appellant. A final reply dated 07.09.2017 was claimed to have been provided to the appellant but the same was found to be furnished while giving due reply in connection with some other but similar RTI application.
The appellant submitted that although he received both the replies, he was contesting replies on point nos. 1, 3 and 7 of the reply dated 07.09.2017.
On point no. 3 , the appellant relied on an earlier CIC decision in the case of Mr. Neeraj Kumar V Mr. Jit Singh , PIO, JNU, File no CIC/SG/A/2008/00248. The relevant para is quoted below:
"While deciding this case, the Commission agrees with the contention of the appellant that when a person "is holding a public office, getting salary from the public exchequer and discharging public functions in a public institution, therefore whatever documents she has submitted in pursuance of her appointment to public office in a public institution falls in public domain." The act of applying for a job or a 2 selection process is not a private activity but is clearly a Public activity, and disclosure of the documents and papers submitted to obtain the job cannot be held to be an invasion on privacy. This has also been held by the Commission earlier in decision CIC/WB/A/2007/00178, and the Commission agrees with the same. The Commission respectfully disagrees with the decisions relied on by the third party."
The Commission differs with the above quoted CIC decision and observed that the sought for information on point no. 3 of the above dated RTI application i.e. copies of recommendations of the selection committee/interview panel along with the copy of the final signed result sheet, strictly falls under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the same cannot be disclosed to the appellant. These recommendations include remarks made by the selection committee members while assessing performance of the candidates. The disclosure of any such recommendations/comments does not involve any serious public interest but may tend to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the candidates whose cases were thus finalised by the said selection commitee. The Commission relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India V D.S. Meena, W.P No W.P.(C) 4735/2011. The relevant para is extracted below:
16. 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‟. Section 8(1) (j) of the Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the Central Public Information Officer („CPIO‟ for short) 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.
17. Further an individual or citizen's fundamental rights, which include the right to privacy are not subsumed or extinguished if he accepts or holds public office.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 'Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar' AIR 1962 SC 1166, speaking in this context observed:
3"(11) ....... We find ourselves unable to accept the argument that the Constitution excludes Government servants as a class from the protection of the several rights guaranteed by the several Articles in Part III save in those cases where such persons were specifically named.
(12) In our opinion, this argument even if otherwise possible, has to be repelled in view of the terms of Art. 33. That Article selects two of the Services under the State-members of the armed forces and forces charged with the maintenance of public order and saves the rules prescribing the conditions of service in regard to them - from invalidity on the ground of violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III and also defines the purpose for which such abrogation or restriction might take place, this being limited to ensure the proper discharge of duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. The Article having thus selected the Services members of which might be deprived of the benefit of the fundamental rights guaranteed to other persons and citizens and also having prescribed the limits within which such restrictions or abrogation might take place, we consider that other classes of servants of Government in common with other persons and other citizens of the country cannot be excluded from the protection of the rights guaranteed by Part III by reason merely of their being Government servants and the nature and incidents of the duties which they have to discharge in that capacity might necessarily involve restrictions of certain freedoms as we have pointed out in relation to Art.
19(1)(e)and (g)."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors.' (2013) 1 SCC 212, also made following observation:
"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 4 information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
It was also noted by the Commission that point no. 3 of the stated RTI application involves third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent CPIO had however claimed exemption under section 8(1)(a) instead of 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. During the hearing also the respondent official was not able to justify how the exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is applicable in the present case. This lack of knowledge on the part of the then CPIO/PIO is deplorable and for which he needs to be issued warning.
On point no. 7 of the above stated RTI application, a revised reply should be provided as the sought for information on this point is completely disclosable i.e. a copy of the reservation policy should be provided to the appellant.
The then respondent CPIO, is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, present address, mobile no., place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post in January, 2017 for record.
The present respondent CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this warning to the then CPIO and a copy of the service of the above said warning be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of the receipt of the order.
An advisory is also issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to CMD, Air India to organise basic training programmes on RTI Act/matters to the officers (respondent CPIO/PIO and FAA)/ and staff dealing with RTI matters working 5 in Air India without any further delay. The Commission desires that this advice should be viewed seriously and action taken report be submitted to the Commission within one month of the receipt of the order.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant on point no 7 of the above stated RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised reply on this point complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above /direction/warning/advisory, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 6