Central Information Commission
Sachin Anand vs Ihm Hajipur on 1 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/IHMCG/A/2022/622168 +
3 others as per annexure
In the matter of:
Sachin Anand
... Appellant
VS
1 .Central Public Information Officer
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management,
Catering and Nutrition (AIHM)
Sector - 42 D, Chandigarh - 160 036
2. Central Public Information Officer
Institute of Hotel Management Catering
Technology and Applied Nutrition (IHM)
F- Row, D.D. Colony, Vidyanagar,
Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana
3. Central Public Information Officer
Institute of Hotel Management Catering
Technology and Applied Nutrition (IHM)
Ramashish Chowk, Hajipur, Bihar - 844 102
4. Central Public Information Officer
India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC)
Scope Complex, Core -8, 6th Floor,
7 Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
...Respondents
Date of Hearing : 01/03/2023 Date of Decision : 01/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC Respondents: Following were present over VC: 1. Vivekananda, HOD/CPIO for Respondent No. 2 1
2. Kalyan Mukherjee, HOD/CPIO for Respondent No. 3
3. Ashok Das, HOD(HR)/CPIO for Respondent No. 4
1. File No. CIC/IHMCG/A/2022/622168:
RTI application filed on : 19/10/2021 CPIO replied on : 18/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 23/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order dated : 20/01/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 18/04/2022 Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has sought information in respect of points 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application, given below, which pertain to an advertisement issued by AIHM, Chandigarh for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lecturer:
2. Provide the detailed marks of each candidate, who appeared in the Teaching Aptitude Test and Practical Skill Test, according to para 10 & 11 of (prescribed process of selection against the vacancy of Assistant Lecturer and Teaching Associate in NCHMCT affiliated IHMs, after NHTET or PhD in Hospitality subject) which is available on Page no.13,14 &15 of NCHMCT Recruitment Rules (Teaching) (File No.1(11)/RR/2000-HRD dated May, 2019).
3. Provide complete video recording of Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test of each candidate, conducted by AIHM, Chandigarh.
4. Whether chits for Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test had been kept in pot for deciding Practical task and Teaching topic for each candidate for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lecturer.
2. File No. CIC/IHMHY/A/2022/624253:
RTI application filed on : 28/10/2021 CPIO replied on : 26/11/2021 - Not on record First appeal filed on : 24/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order dated : 17/01/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 28/04/2022 Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has sought information in respect of points 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application, given below, which pertain to an 2 advertisement issued by IHM, Hyderabad for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lecturer:
2. Provide the detailed marks of each candidate, who appeared in the Teaching Aptitude Test and Practical Skill Test, according to para 10 & 11 of (prescribed process of selection against the vacancy of Assistant Lecturer and Teaching Associate in NCHMCT affiliated IHMs, after NHTET or PhD in Hospitality subject) which is available on Page no.13,14 &15 of NCHMCT Recruitment Rules (Teaching) (File No.1(11)/RR/2000-HRD dated May, 2019).
3. Provide complete video recording of Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test of each candidate, conducted by IHM, Hyderabad .
4. Whether chits for Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test had been kept in pot for deciding Practical task and Teaching topic for each candidate for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lecturer.
3. File No. CIC/NCHMT/A/2022/622123/IHMHJ:
RTI application filed on : 28/10/2021 CPIO replied on : 25/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 23/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order dated : 20/01/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 18/04/2022 Information Sought:
Appellant has made a reference to an advertisement (Advertisement No. - IHM: Advt.(1.7)/2021-40) issued by IHM, Hajipur, for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lecturer. With regard to the same, appellant has sought the following information pertaining to point 2 and 3 of the RTI application:
2. Provide the detailed marks of each candidate, who appeared in the Teaching Aptitude Test and Practical Skill Test, according to para 10 & 11 of (prescribed process of selection against the vacancy of Assistant Lecturer and Teaching Associate in NCHMCT affiliated IHMs, after NHTET or PhD in Hospitality subject) which is available on Page no.13,14 &15 of NCHMCT Recruitment Rules (Teaching) (File No.1(11)/RR/2000-HRD dated May, 2019).
3. Provide complete video recording of Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test of each candidate, conducted by IHM, Hajipur.3
4. File No. CIC/ITDCO/A/2022/624281:
RTI application filed on : 20/10/2021 CPIO replied on : 15/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 24/12/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : 02/02/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 28/04/2022 Information Sought:
The appellant has stated that ITDC, New Delhi had published an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Assistant lecturer. In this regard, the appellant has sought the following information on points 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application:
2. Provide the detailed marks of each candidate, who appeared in the Teaching Aptitude Test and Practical Skill Test, according to para 10 & 11 of (prescribed process of selection against the vacancy of Assistant Lecturer and Teaching Associate in NCHMCT affiliated IHMs, after NHTET or PhD in Hospitality subject) which is available on Page no.13, 14 & 15 of NCHMCT Recruitment Rules (Teaching) (File No. 1(11)/RR/2000-HRD dated May, 2019).
3. Provide complete video recording of Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test of each candidate, conducted by ITDC.
4. Whether chits for Practical Skill Test and Teaching Aptitude Test had been kept in pot for deciding Practical task and Teaching topic for each candidate for recruitment to the post of Assistant Lecturer.
Grounds for filing Second Appeals The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondents on points no. 2-4 of his RTI applications. He therefore requested the Commission to direct the CPIOs concerned to provide a revised reply on the said points. He stated that the respondents did not conduct video recording of the recruitment procedure which was in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The CPIO for respondent no. 1 remained absent during the hearing despite due service of notice of hearing delivered to his office on 16.02.2023 vide speed post no. ED072398180IN.4
The CPIO for respondent no. 2 while reiterating the contents of the written submissions dated 22.02.2023 stated that the information sought for at point no.2 and 4 was provided to the appellant. He was further informed that conducting video recording of the procedure was not mandatory as per the extant recruitment rules, hence, it was not available in the records. He submitted that a copy of the written submissions was also sent by post to the appellant.
The CPIO for respondent no. 3 submitted that the appellant was asked to deposit the requisite fees for seeking information on point no. 2 which has not been deposited by him till date. He further stated that the video recording as sought for in point no. 3 was done for institutional purposes and the contents of the recording cannot be disclosed in public as it contains personal information of the candidates. Qua point no. 4, the appellant was informed that the guidelines laid down by NCHMCT, Noida were followed for conducting the tests.
The CPIO for respondent no. 4 submitted that the information sought for at point no. 2 was denied under Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the information requested for on points no. 3 and 4 was not available in the records. He stated that no video recording was done by their office, hence, denied to the appellant. He referred to his written submissions dated 22.02.2023 which was available on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
The Commission at the outset clubbed the instant cases for hearing and final disposal as similar queries were raised by the appellant in the instant cases qua recruitment process of the respondents.
The Commission on a perusal of the facts on record and hearing the submissions of the respondents observed that the breakup of the practical and aptitude marks of candidates is personal information of the candidates concerned and disclosure of such information is barred as per Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO of respondent no. 2 erred by providing the detailed marks of all the candidates to the appellant. The Commission observed that the CPIO for respondent no. 4 has rightly denied the disclosure of the same citing Section-8(1)(j) and provided proper reasons for the denial. The appellant failed to place on the record any fact or document to show involvement of public interest in the matter. Therefore, the Commission held that the disclosure of the information was barred under Section-8(1)(j). However, the Commission opined that the bar of the said exemption clause does not extend to disclosing the detailed marks of the appellant. Therefore, the CPIOs concerned were directed to provide the marks secured by the appellant only 5 in the Teaching Aptitude Test and Practical Skill Test as sought for in point no.
2.
The Commission is in agreement with the contentions of the CPIOs with regard to the video recording as sought for in point no. 3. The CPIOs for respondents no. 2 and 4 have informed that no video recording was done, therefore, the denial was justified as only that information which is disclosable and available in the records can be provided.. For the sake of argument even if the video recording was done by the respondents, the disclosure of the same is barred under Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 unless there is involvement of any public interest. Therefore, the Commission held that the information sought for in point no. 3 is not disclosable as per Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission further noted that the query no. 4 in the instant cases is in interrogative form which is not as per Section-2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Commission the CPIO is not obligated to provide clarification on whether chits were kept for deciding the topic or not. Reliance was placed by the Commission on the definition of information under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 which reads as :
"information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force"
However, the Commission noted that the CPIOs have responded to the query no. 4 of the appellant. The Commission therefore is not inclined to provide any relief qua query no. 4.
The Commission noted that the CPIO for respondent no. 1 failed to attend the hearing without any prior intimation or assigning reasons for absence thereof. Therefore, he is directed to explain in writing the reasons for his non- appearance to the Commission.
Decision:
For the reasons recorded above, the Commission directs the CPIO of respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 to provide the marks secured by the appellant only in the Teaching Aptitude Test and Practical Skill Test free-of-cost to the appellant. The Commission concluded that the disclosure of detailed marks of other candidates as sought for by the appellant in point no. 2 was barred from 6 disclosure under Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO for respondents no. 2 and 4 are also directed by the Commission to re-send a copy of the written submissions dated 22.02.2023 to the appellant. The CPIO for respondent no. 1 is directed to furnish a written explanation to the Commission for his non-appearance in the hearing.
The aforesaid directions of the Commission shall be complied with by the CPIOs within 05 days of the receipt of this order.
The instant second appeals are therefore disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date Annexure Sl. No. File Number 1 CIC/IHMCG/A/2022/622168 2 CIC/IHMHY/A/2022/624253 3 CIC/NCHMT/A/2022/622123/IHMHJ 4 CIC/ITDCO/A/2022/624281 7