Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kunwarsen Dhangar vs Agricultural And Processed Food ... on 8 May, 2026

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644811


Kunwarsen Dhangar
                                                           .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant

                                             VERSUS
                                              बनाम


CPIO : 1. The CPIO Agricultural and                     ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Processed Food Products Export
Development Authority, 3rd Floor,
NCUI Building, 3,Siri Fort Institutional
Area, August Kranti Marg opp. Asiad
Village, New Delhi-110016


Date of Hearing                     :   07-05-2026
Date of Interim Decision            :   07-05-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              Khushwant Singh Sethi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :   30-06-2025
CPIO replied on                     :   28-07-2025
First appeal filed on               :   02-08-2025
First Appellate Authority's order   :   01-09-2025
2nd Appeal dated                    :   24-09-2025




CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644811                                              Page 1 of 8
 Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-06-2025 for seeking the information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28-07-2025. The Information sought and reply given in this regard is as under:

            ""S.      Information sought                         Reply

            No.


            1.        एपीडा कार्ाालर् में ऐसोससएट लीगल           मांगी गई जािकारी प्रत्र्र्ी प्रकृनत

                      एवं कंसलटें ट, चर्नित (कार्ारत)            (Fiduciary in nature) की िै । एपीडा के

                      ऐसोससएट लीगल एवं कंसलटें टों की            मित्वपूर्ा अधिकाररर्ों/ पदाधिकाररर्ों

                      िाम, पदिाम एवं सीर्ूजी िम्बर सहित          की टे लीफोि निदे सिका एपीडा वेबसाइट -

                      सत्र्ापपत छार्ा प्रनतसलपपर्ों को प्रदाि    www.apeda.gov.in के आरटीआई

                      करें ।                                     अिुभाग में उपलब्ि िै ।


            2.        एपीडा कार्ाालर् में ऐसोससएट लीगल           एपीडा कार्ाालर् में एसोससएट लीगल और

                      एवं कंसलटें ट की भती प्रक्रिर्ा को         कंसलटें ट की भती एपीडा द्वारा की जाती

                      मंत्रालर् से करार्ा िै तो गैजेट            िै ।

                      िोहटक्रफकेिि की स्वीकृनत की र्हद ििीं

                      तो भती प्रक्रिर्ा के आिार (अधिनिर्म)

                      की सत्र्ापपत छार्ा प्रनतसलपपर्ों को

                      प्रदाि करें ।


            3.        एपीडा कार्ाालर् में ऐसोससएट लीगल           भती के सलए नििााररत िैक्षक्षक र्ोग्र्ता

एवं कंसलटें ट की भती प्रक्रिर्ा के दौराि का पववरर् www.apeda.gov.in िैक्षणर्क र्ोग्र्ताओं की सत्र्ापपत (सामान्र् जािकारी पष्ृ ठ के अंतगात छार्ा प्रनतसलपपर्ों को प्रदाि करें । भती/निर्ुक्तत अिुभाग में) पर उपलब्ि िै ।"

2. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-08-2025. The FAA vide its order dated 01-09-2025, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference. Respondent: Mr. Dhirender Kumar, AGM and Mr. Saurav Agarwal, AGM, attended the hearing in person.

4. The Appellant submitted, that he sought attested photocopies of selected (working) Associate Legal & Consultants with name, designation and CUG number; attested photocopies of educational qualifications during the recruitment process of Associate Legal & Consultant in APEDA office etc. The appellant submitted that the respondent had not provided the sought educational qualifications certificates of the Associate Legal & Consultant in APEDA office.

5. The Respondent submitted, that the sought educational qualifications certificates of the Associate Legal & Consultant pertain to third-party personal information and hence, are exempted from disclosure U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted, that the details of educational qualifications prescribed for recruitment are available at www.apeda.gov.in, and the same was informed to the appellant. The respondent also submitted, that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant, with relevant website links, vide letter dated 28.07.2025.

6. Written submission dated 29.04.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record.

Interim Decision:

7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the respondent gave an appropriate reply for point nos. 1 and 2, vide letter dated 28.07.2025. During the hearing, the appellant had alleged that the respondent had not provided copies of educational qualifications certificates of the respondent department employees. The respondent had claimed exemption U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same is found to be appropriate.

In this regard, attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009, titled Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager V. C.S. Shyam & Anr. In this case, the respondent therein sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff in all the branches of the appellant-Bank, and the PIO therein denied the sought information U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Hon'ble High Court had directed for disclosure of the sought information and impugning the same an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court had relied on 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, and held that information sought by the respondent, regarding individual employees working in the Bank, was personal in nature and exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Court had elaborated on the personal information, and relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:

"12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-

"12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in as an organisation 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 CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644811 Page 5 of 8 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 or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No. 1. "

Similarly, the educational qualification certificates of employees are their personal information and is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

8. The respondent is directed to provide reply to the appellant, for point nos. 3 - claiming relevant exemption under the RTI Act, 2005, point nos. 4 and 5 - as per the RTI Act, 2005, both by speed post & appellant's e-mail ID (as mentioned in RTI application dated 30.06.2025), within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.

9. The Commission finds, that the respondent had not provided information for point nos. 4 and 5. In view of the above, the then incumbent CPIO is hereby SHOW-CAUSED as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be imposed upon him/her for not providing information against point nos.4 and 5. The respondent is directed to submit detailed written explanation to the Commission for the aforesaid reason - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is reserved for further orders.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 07.05.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644811 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:

1. The CPIO Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3,Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg opp. Asiad Village, New Delhi-110016

2. The FAA, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3,Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg opp. Asiad Village, New Delhi-110016

3. Kunwarsen Dhangar CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644811 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)