Central Information Commission
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 20 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002510/5626
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002510
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,
502 A, Shivaji Gali,
Chhajjupur Shahdara
Delhi - 110032
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Directorate of Education, GNCT, Delhi O/o the Deputy Director of Education District North, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi - 110054 RTI application filed on : 01/07/2009 PIO replied : 03/08/2009 First appeal filed on : 08/08/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 09/09/2009 Second Appeal received on : 29/10/2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 14/10/2009 Hearing Held on : 20/11/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Photo copy of the Appellant's A.C.R Photo copy of A.C.R is not allowed to be for the year 2007-2008 given as it is to be kept secret.
2. The Appellant's grading by the Same as above Principal in the A.C.R and on what basis such grade was given.
3. Photo copy of the grade given to the Same as above Appellant's A.C.R by the higher educational authority
4. Action taken by the authority against As the A.C.R is directly sent to E.O and the Principal. E.O grades them, the question does not arise.
5. Which authority has power to Principal has such authority oversee process of A.C.R
6. If the Appellant's A.C.R is not This is a hypothetical question as such produced what effect will it have on incident has never taken place. his career and who is responsible for the same.
7. What is the time limit for filling up A.C.R should be filled by July and the of A.C.R and the procedure for the teacher will provide the password and same and photocopy of any related then it must be filled up and handed over correspondence by the Principal to the Head of School regarding the same.
8. Name and designation of the officer Head of School responsible for filling up the A.C.R
9. Does anyone have the power to defy The enclosed is not an order of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Supreme Court but is only a newspaper regard report First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
The PIO has provided the relevant information and requires no further direction. Moreover, the Appellant has given no justification for obtaining the A.C.R for the year 2007-2008.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Respondent : Mrs Urmil Khanna (PIO).
The PIO has denied the information asked by the Appellant. The Appellant was seeking his own ACR. The PIO relied on a DOPT memorandum of 21 September 2007 in which it states that "public authority is not under obligation to disclose ACR's of any employee to the employee himself or to any other person in as much to disclosure of ACR is protected by clause j of subsection 1 of section 8 of RTI Act." This memorandum is contrary to the law and PIO are advised to give their own reasoning before applying section 8 (1) of RTI Act. It is evident that a person cannot invade his own privacy. The PIO is warned to ensure that if any exemption clause of Section 8 (1) is resorted to for claiming exemption some reason must be given.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information to the Appellant before 30 November 2009. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 November 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PS)