Central Information Commission
Syed Ismailuddin vs Centre For Dna Fingerprinting And ... on 14 February, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CDFAD/C/2022/644454
In the matter of
Syed Ismailuddin
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)
(An autonomous institute of the Department of Biotechnology,
Ministry of Science & Technology)
Inner Ring Road, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 039
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/07/2022 CPIO replied on : 05/08/2022 First appeal filed on : Not on Record First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Complaint dated : 15/08/2022 Date of Hearing : 13/02/2023 Date of Decision : 13/02/2023 The following were present: Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Dr K Anupama, Staff Scientist/Link CPIO-Present over VC Information Sought:
In 2005, the services of seven contract employees were regularized. In this regard, the complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the composition of the selection committee. Also provide a copy of the noting and other related papers in connection with the selection process.
2. Provide names of the contract employees whose services were regularised in 2005.
3. Provide a copy of the Minutes of the selection committee constituted for regularizing the services of the seven contract employees.1
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant was not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO. He requested to take action against the CPIO for denying the sought for information. The complainant remained absent during the hearing despite due service of the notice of hearing.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for by the complainant was personal information of certain employees and they had not given their consent for disclosing their personal information. Hence, the complainant was apprised that the information could not be given.
Observations:
The Commission on a perusal of the case records and hearing both the parties observed that the desired information was personal in nature, therefore, the CPIO resorted to the procedure mentioned in Section-11 of the RTI Act, 2005. As per the CPIO, the third parties concerned did not give their consent for disclosure of information, hence, the information sought was denied by the respondent authority and in the opinion of the Commission, the denial was justified. The Commission was satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO. Adverting to the contents of the complaint, the Commission observed that the instant matter was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section-18. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the complaint was not sustainable.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing observations and the fact that a suitable reply was given in a timely fashion, therefore, no adverse action under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted. The complainant also did not appear for the hearing to follow up his case.2
The instant complaint is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3