Central Information Commission
Alok Kumar Singh Kushwaha vs University Of Allahabad on 7 July, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2019/600522
In the matter of:
Alok Kumar Singh Kushwaha
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University of Allahabad
Senate House, University Road,
Old Katra Prayagraj - 211 002, Allahabad
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/10/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 13/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal dated : 09/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 06/07/2020 Date of Decision : 06/07/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Associate Professor & the CPIO alongwith Shri Sanjay Upadhyay, Joint Registrar & the Nodal CPIO, both present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. List of candidates selected for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science subject, University of Allahabad, against the advt. No. UoA/Asst Prof./02/2017 dated 29/08/2017. Provide category wise list (Unreserved, OBC, SC/ST and PH).1
2. Provide the selection criteria and short-listing score of each candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science subject, University of Allahabad, against the advt. No. UoA/Asst Prof./02/2017 dated 29/08/2017.
3. Provide the details of weightage of academic, research, and interview of each selected candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science subject, University of Allahabad, against the advt. No. UoA/Asst Prof./02/2017 dated 29/08/2017.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal Both CPIO and FAA have not provided any reply.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him particularly on points no 3 & 4 of the RTI application. He further submitted that similar information was provided to some other applicants by different public authorities and hence the denial of the information by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not proper. To substantiate his claim, he referred to the CIC decisions passed in File No.s ICPB/A-9/CIC/2006 dated 03.04.2006, CIC/SH/A/2014/000190 & CIC/SM/A/2011/000270/SG/13574.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 16.10.2018. He further submitted that after receipt of the CIC's hearing notice, an additional reply was given by the concerned PIO on 30.06.2020.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is contesting the reply of the CPIO on points no. 3 & 4 of the RTI application. On these points, the appellant had sought the details of weightage of academic research, and interview of each selected candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science subject and the copies of the online applications of all the selected candidates against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017. The CPIO in his reply has denied the information while claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant 2 submitted that similar information was provided to the applicants and hence in parity, this information should be disclosed to him also. He also quoted several decisions of the Commission to substantiate his contention.
The Commission concurs with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and holds that the weightage of marks given to the selected candidates and the application forms submitted by such candidates qualify as personal information of the third parties and hence stand exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The decisions quoted by the appellant even though cover similar information, however, the facts of all these cases are totally different and hence not applicable to the present facts of the case. Moreover, the appellant was not able to establish larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
However, it is noted that a proper reply to the above mentioned RTI application has been provided only after receipt of the CIC's hearing notice and before that the CPIO in his reply has merely stated that the information is not available in the FRC Section. To this, the CPIO submitted that the then Director & the PIO, FRC was not assisting him when any assistance was sought by him and hence he was unable to supply the relevant information to the appellant. The Commission expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the then PIO, Shri Anupam Dixit for failure on his part to assist the CPIO. However, since he has retired from service, the Commission is taking a lenient view in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO dated 30.06.2020 and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) 3 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4