Central Information Commission
Pranav Barapatre vs Indian Institute Of Information ... on 26 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IIITV/A/2023/638524
Pranav Barapatre ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Indian Institute of Information Technology ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Vadodara,
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.04.2023 FA : 12.05.2023 SA : 07.08.2023
CPIO : 01.05.2023 FAO : 18.05.2023 Hearing : 20.11.2024
Date of Decision: 26.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Specify the details of application for the benefits of service transfer as mentioned below:
Sr. Name of the Date of Date on Date of Date of
No. Employee Application which Action communication
application taken on sent for the
is received application successful
for transfer completion of
of service the process.
benefits
1.
Page 1 of 7
(ii) Specify the total number of pending application for transfer of service benefits
who have resigned on technical grounds for taking up appointment elsewhere in the Govt. along with the date from which itis pending:
(iii) Whether any communication has been sent for such pending application? (If answer is NO, kindly provide the certificated copy of approval (Email / Document) from the competent authority for not sending any communication for such applications):
(iv) Kindly provide all actions which have been taken for the pending application for transfer of service benefits? (If No action has been taken, kindly provide the certificated copy of approval (Email / Document) from the competent authority for not processing the application or for not taking any action on the pending application):
(v) Kindly provide the total number of pending application for transfer of service benefits presented before the BoG? (If answer is NO, kindly provide the certificated copy of approval (Email / Document) from the competent authority for not presenting such pending application before the BoG):
(vi) Does the institute follows the Statute of IITT Vadodara published in Gazette Notification dated 22 October 2018? (YES/ NO).
(vii) If any of the point of the Statute is not to be followed, kindly provide the certificated copy of approval (Email / Document) from the competent authority wherein it has been instructed which all points section of Statute of IIT Vadodara is not to be followed:
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. With reference to your RTI application No. IIITV/R/E/23/00011 dated 04 April 2023 (received through RTI Portal on 04 April 2023), the point wise reply is as under:Page 2 of 7
ii. Regarding point (1) of your RTI application, it is stated that:
Sr. Name of the Date of Date on Date of Date of
No. Employee Application which Action communication
application taken on sent for the
is received application successful
for transfer completion of
of service the process.
benefits
1. Pranav 14.02.2019 14.02.2019 Nil Nil
Barapatre
(Applicant)
Information sought in respect of the names & details of other employee is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Delhi HC judgement Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. wherein it was held as under-
"12. This court is of the opinion that whenever personal information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals.
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the "High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society"
iii. Regarding point (2) of your RT! application, itis stated that:
a) NIL applications are pending for transfer of service benefits who have resigned on technical grounds for taking up appointment elsewhere in the Govt. along with the date from which it is pending002E Page 3 of 7
b) The institute does not have any policy on the transfer of the service benefits where any financial involvement of the institute is considered. In this connection, please also refer to the reply sent on 13th March 2023 (point no. 4) for your RTI application dated 23rd Feb 2023.
iv. Regarding point (3) of your RTI application, it is stated that:
a) No communication has been sent for such pending application.
b) There is no policy on the asked query, therefore no communication has been done with the applicants. The Office order is enclosed as Annexure -- 1 v. Regarding point (4) of your RTI application, it is stated that:
No action. There is no policy on transfer of service benefits. Office order is enclosed. vi. Regarding point (5) of your RTI application, it is stated that:
a) NIL applications are pending applications for transfer of service benefits presented before the BOG.
b) No such document held by the Public Authority vii. Regarding point (6) of your RTI application, it is stated that:
Yes, the institute follows the Statute of IIT Vadodara published in Gazette Notification dated 22 October 2018.
viii. Regarding point (7) of your RTI application, it is stated that:
No such case has come to the notice of the institute.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.05.2023 stated that:
i. Information as sought in Point 1 in respect of the names & details of other employee is clearly Protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 -- Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein it was held as under:
SC: "59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated Page 4 of 7 as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
ii. Information as sought in Point 2 in respect of total number of pending applications for transfer of service benefits. Since the institute does not have any policy on the transfer of the service benefits, resulting in NIL applications pending for transfer of service benefits who have resigned on technical grounds for taking up appointment elsewhere in the Govt.
iii. Information as sought in Point 3(b) to provide certified copy of approval (email/ document) from the competent authority for not sending any communication for such application. The institute does not have any policy on the transfer of the service benefits where any financial involvement of the institute is considered, and No approval is sought from the competent authority for not sending any communication for such application.
iv. Information as sought in Point 4(b) to provide the certified copy of approval (email/ document) from the competent authority for not processing the application or for not taking any action on the pending application. There is no policy on transfer of service benefits, and No approval is sought from the competent authority for not processing the application or for not taking any action on the pending application v. Information as sought in Point 5(b) to provide total number of pending applications for transfer of service benefits presented before the BoG. There is Page 5 of 7 no policy on transfer of service benefits, and No approval is sought from the competent authority for presenting such pending application before the BoG vi. Appellate authority after further discussion/deliberation with CPIO/IIIT (PPP) Vadodara gave a decision that the appeal stands disposed of as the appellant did not turn up for the scheduled hearing. Thus. the above appeal stands disposed of.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.08.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Jigar Shah, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 01.05.2023. He further submitted that all available information had been provided to the appellant and the information sought on point no.1 of the RTI application pertaining to other employees (third-parties), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, the exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act had been claimed.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided available information to the appellant vide letter dated 01.05.2023. Further, the FAA vide order dated 18.05.2023, also facilitated the appellant with the further detailed reply and correctly denied the information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Page 6 of 7Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 26.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Information Technology Vadodara, CPIO, RTI Cell, Block No.-9, Government Engineering College, Sector 28, Gandhinagar-382028
2. Pranav Barapatre Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)