Central Information Commission
Avdhesh Kumar vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 28 January, 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
Decision no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/153302/02711
File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/153302
In the matter of:
Avdhesh Kumar
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Under Secretary
Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan - 1, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/04/2018 CPIO replied on : 09/05/2018 First appeal filed on : 31/05/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 12/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 24/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 27/01/2020 Date of Decision : 27/01/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Ajay Gautam, Under Secretary & CPIO alongwith Dr Suresh Pal and Upendra Pal, all present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information related to Dr. Akansha Bisht (Roll No. 150904190660), D/o Sh. Gopal Singh, who has illegally cleared NET Exam in September 2010 in Fisheries Science in Physically Challenged/Handicapped Category whereas she is medically and physically fit:
1. Provide the application form filled by Dr. Akansha along with her Physically Challenged/Handicapped Medical Certificate before appearing and after clearing NET Exam in September 2010.1
2. Provide her medical report related to Physically Challenged/Handicapped taken by ASRB before and after clearing the NET Exam in September 2010.
3. Action taken report related to cancellation of her NET certificate and filing FIR against her U/s 420 of IPC after disclosing her fraudulent activity vide letter No. CFSC/AC/AK/444 dated 20.12.2016.
4. Provide the report sent to the Enquiry Committee of GBPUA&T, Pantnagar enquiring factual facts of Dr. Akansha Bisht
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information is related to fraudulent act done by Dr. Akansha Bisht who appeared in NET Exam in the year 2010 and cleared the NET exam under Physically Challenged category in September 2010 but the fact is that she is not physically handicapped. To support his contention, he relied on a decision passed by the Commission in File No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901839 dated 27.10.2012.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 09.05.2018.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved as the desired information was not provided to him. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he had sought this information for redressal of the corruption done by Dr Akansha Bisht who has fraudulently cleared the NET exams by applying under physically challenged quota, even though she is not physically handicapped. On a query by the Commission whether he has any substantial proof regarding the allegations made by him against Dr Akansha Bisht, the appellant failed to produce any document, however, he cited a decision of the Commission passed in File No. CIC/SS/A/2011/901839 and submitted that similar information was disclosed to the appellant in this case and hence the desired information should be provided to him.2
File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/153302 Having perused the above mentioned CIC decision dated 27.02.2012, it is noted that the information sought in that case was general in nature covering almost the entire working of the ASRB over many years and it was not confined to a specific person. The relevant portion of the order on the basis of which the order was given is quoted below:
"After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant through his RTI-request is seeking documents for the entire working/ selection process of the respondent public authority, which is a recruitment agency. The Commission is of the view that the information sought for by the appellant is voluminous so as to disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA has rightly held that the information sought by the appellant is too general and vast and has advised the appellant to seek specific information which can be provided to him. The decision of the FAA is upheld, since the Commission finds no reason to disagree with it."
In the present case, the appellant had sought information about a particular person including her application form, medical report and other related documents. The Commission concurs with the stand of the CPIO as the sought for information constitutes personal information of a third party and is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant was not able to prove any public interest in the matter nor produce any evidence on the basis of which he is alleging irregularities. In view of the above, the Commission finds no ground to lift the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further action lies in the matter.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO dated 09.05.2018 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) 3 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4