Central Information Commission
Rohit Shokeen vs University Of Delhi on 18 June, 2021
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/UODEL/A/2019/145496
Rohit Shokeen अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
PGDAV College, University
Of Delhi, RTI Cell, Nehru Nagar,
Ring Road, New Delhi - 110065. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/06/2021
Date of Decision : 17/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/05/2019
CPIO replied on : 12/06/2019
First appeal filed on : 13/06/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 12/07/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/08/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2019 seeking information on following points:1
1) "Marks of the selected candidate for the post of Senior Assistant.
2) Marks of candidate Roll Number 038096 for the post of senior assistant. The candidate is himself asking his marks and attaching admit card copy.
3) Highest marks scored in objective paper, descriptive paper and in total separately for the post of Senior Assistant.
4) How many candidate have scored more marks than roll number 038096 in Objective paper, Descriptive paper and in total separately for senior assistant examination.
5) Copy of question paper, answer keys used, candidate response in objective paper and descriptive answer sheet of candidate mentioned in point 2.
6) Reason for disqualification of selected candidate for the post of senior assistant.
7) Copy of all office orders/meetings related to disqualification of candidate for the post of senior assistant.
8) Is there any ongoing court case/police complaint with respect to recruitment of senior assistant and any other post in above mentioned recruitment advertisement? Provide copy of court case/police complaint and full detail of it and updated status of the case.
9) Provide date wise steps taken with respect to entertainment of this RTI application till its disposal.
10) Provide details of all reply, steps initiated/taken for disposal/entertainment of e mail received from id shokeenrn1lOgnmail.com, individual email wise, on your college e mail id, written or oral all steps to be reported."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 12.06.2019 and stated as under:-
"1. No candidates was selected
2. 40.18% in 1VICQ; Descriptive paper was not evaluated. 3 & 4. Since the matter concern the third party, we cannot disclose it to you.
5. The candidate can come and inspect the document for information that he has sought.
6 & 7. It relates to third party and the matter is sub-judice.
8. Yes. Since it relates to third party and the matter is sub-judice, it cannot be provided.2
9. The usual disposal procedure.
10. No such steps have been taken."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.06.2019. FAA's order dated 12.07.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO and also offered an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant against point No. 5 of the RTI application.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of complete information and also denial of information by CPIO against points no. 3,4,6,7 & 8 as being third party's personal information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Anu Kapoor, Associate Professor & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background of the RTI Application stated that he was one of the candidates who appeared in the averred exam for the post of Senior Assistant but was declared disqualified. Therefore, he filed the RTI Application to get the desired information pertaining to his own self. Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the ground that complete and accurate information was not given by the CPIO. On point no. 2 of RTI Application, he contested that instead of providing the actual marks obtained by him, the CPIO only intimated the percentage, which is not even correct as per his calculation. He further argued that upon visiting the college for inspection of records against point no. 5 of RTI Application, the CPIO did not cooperate with him and barred him from using his mobile phone as calculator. Appellant further contended that the information was wrongly denied by the CPIO against points no. 3,4,6,7 & 8 of RTI Application on the ground of third party's information and also on the ground of the matter being sub-judice.
The CPIO reiterating the contents of reply submitted that a point-wise and timely response was provided to the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act. On point no. 1 of 3 RTI Application, she submitted that no candidate was selected for the averred post. On point no. 2 of RTI application, she added that the averred exam was conducted as well as evaluated by an outsourced agency and the information provided to the Appellant is as per the format of marking followed by the outsourced agency. Further, in response to points no. 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the RTI Application, she added that since the information sought for pertains to other candidate(s) and because the said recruitment is under litigation, the information has been denied to the Appellant as being sub judice. With regard to point no. 5 of RTI Application, she apprised the Commission that Appellant has already inspected the records in compliance with the FAA's order. Further against points no. 9 & 10 of RTI Application, she added that the factual position has been already intimated to the Appellant.
On point no. 1 of RTI Application, the Appellant while rebutting the CPIO's arguments contested that as per their website, name of one of the candidates was figuring therein as qualified for the averred post.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application except for on points no. 1 & 10 is not very cogent and largely fails to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
At the outset, the CPIO shall note that sub judice is not a tenable ground for denial of information under the RTI Act since at least one or more of the exemption clauses of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act should be applicable and invoked for denying the information. In this regard, attention of the CPIO is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 wherein it was held as under:
"5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
Now, adverting to the argument of third-party information being sought for by the Appellant, same is applicable only for points no. 6 & 7 of the RTI Application, 4 in addition to the fact that point no.6 does not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as it seeks justifications and clarifications to be deduced by the CPIO.
As for points no.3 & 4 of the RTI Application, the CPIO appears to have failed to apply his mind while denying the information as the Appellant has merely sought for numerical data therein. In other words, mere mention of the highest marks scored in the exam or the total number of candidates scoring more marks than the Appellant, i.e if such information is maintained, does not by any stretch of imagination impinge on the privacy of any individual.
Similarly, for point no.5 of the RTI Application, the CPIO appears to have unnecessarily inconvenienced the Appellant by asking him to inspect the documents when the same could have been sent to him by post as being his own performance records.
Lastly, although the reply provided to point no. 8 of the RTI Application cannot be called into question as the query is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet since the CPIO is aware of the Court case based on which the matter is being deemed as sub judice, it would have been prudent for the CPIO to have indicated the details of the sub judice case in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. As for the reply provided to point no. 9 of the RTI Application, the same is also found to be evasive. The CPIO should have either provided the available information showing the date-wise action taken report for processing the instant RTI Application, or in the absence of such records, a categorical reply should have been stated by the CPIO.
Now, in view of the foregoing observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a point-wise revised reply to the RTI Application as under:
Point No. 3 - The highest marks scored in the averred exam shall be indicated in the revised reply.
Point No.4 - If any such data is maintained, specific information in terms of the total number of such candidates shall be indicated in the CPIO's reply. If no such data is maintained, a categorical reply to this effect shall be stated in the CPIO's reply.5
Point No.5 - All the available and relevant information as sought for in this point should be provided to the Appellant in physical form.
Point No.8 - The case details of the sub judice case (Case No. and Party Names) shall be indicated in response to this point in the revised reply of the CPIO.
Point No.9 - The specific and available date wise action taken report on the instant RTI Application should be provided to the Appellant. In the event that no such recorded information is available, a categorical reply to this effect shall be stated in the CPIO's reply.
The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant 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 ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6