Central Information Commission
Adv. Adarsh S vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 22 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOCMI/A/2021/100865
Adv. Adarsh S ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Spices Board, RTI Cell,
Sugandha Bhavan, N.H. By Pass,
Palarivattom P.O, Cochin - 682025,
Kerala. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/02/2022
Date of Decision : 21/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 19/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 27/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 18/11/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/01/2021
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2020 seeking information pertaining to a notification dated 02.07.2014 for the post of Assistant Director (Marketing- OBC Category), including inter alia the following;
(a) Total number of applications received.
(b) Total number of applications rejected.
(c) State wise application details (Number of applications received from each state)
(d) Total number of applications from Kerala State.
(e) Total number of Exam Centers and place of exam centers.
(f) Total number of candidates attended the exam.
(g) Total number of candidates selected for the interview.
(h) Total number of candidates attended the interview.
(i) Interview center name.
(j) Name and designation of Interview board members.
(k) If an Interview board is constituted for selection of the post then copy of the office order of the constitution of the interview board.
(l) Name of the selected candidate.
(m)Selected candidate's qualifications, institution and university attended?
(n) If the selected candidate held a valid Non creamy layer (OBC) certificate at the time of application and interview. If yes the date of issuing the certificate by the concerned authority and name of the concerned authority.
(o) Copy of the Non creamy layer (OBC) certificate submitted by the selected candidate.
(p) Place of initial posting of the selected candidate.
(q) Selected candidate's current working place.
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 19.10.2020 stating as follows:-
"...........the information sought in your application No. SPIBO/R /E/20/00056 dated 21.09.2020 requires lot of compilation work and it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and comes under Section 7(9) of RTI Act. Hence you are allowed to see the file related to the appointment of Assistant Director(Marketing) notified for OBC Category in 2014 on a mutually convenient date."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2020. FAA's order dated 18.11.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appealon the following grounds -
2"...1. The CPIO instead of providing the information in the form it is available by taking reference to Supreme Court's judgement in Khanapuram Gandaiah's case has malafidely withheld the information;
2. The Appellant was residing at 150 kms away from the Respondent's office and in this challenging circumstance of Covid it was not possible for him to opt the offer of inspection;
3. No organization will conduct a recruitment process without compiling the records of application received; therefore information must be readily available with the CPIO..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Gopal krishanan P P, Assistant Director & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was very exhaustive and bulky in nature and also not readily available in the desired form; collation and compilation of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public authority. Therefore, the same could not be provided to him in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. He further submitted that an opportunity of inspection of relevant records has already been offered to the Appellant, however he did not avail of the said opportunity.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant again expressed his unwillingness to go for inspection of records and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the relevant information in response to his RTI Application.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records observes that although the reply provided by the CPIO earlier is in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act; and further notes from a close scrutiny of the contents of RTI Application that the information sought by the Appellant at pointsj, l, m, n, o, p and qof the RTI Application including details of interview board members/ selected candidates 3 and their qualifications stand exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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. The following was thus held:
"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 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..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Now, considering the prayer of Appellant, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply along with readily available relevant information on all points of RTI Application (except at pointsj, l, m, n, o, p and q) free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5