Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005:
Information sought-
The certified true copies of the original application filed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar (Director Postal Services, Mumbai Region) at the time of seeking a job at the Department of Post along with all the necessary documents attached to the original application. The information sought was from the date of appointment till date.
Decision notice-
It is fairly obvious that the information which the appellant has sought after in respect of the officer (viz. the application/documents on the basis of which he has been appointed) is in the nature of ‘personal information about third party.’ The employee might have filed these documents before the appointing authority for the purpose of seeking employment, but that is no reason enough for this information to be brought into the public domain to which anybody could have access.
It is also seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13-12-2012 [Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012, Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyad Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anrs, [RTIT IV (2012) 307 (SC)]] has, inter alia, held as under:
“Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment are required to be dealt with great confidentiality. The information may come to knowledge of the authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity”.
“The appellant has not established any public purpose which the disclosure of this information would serve. Hence, we concur with the submissions of the CPIO that the information is exempt.”
[Pradeep Ambadas Ingole vs. CPIO & Director Postal Services, Mumbai Region, decided on 26-12-2013: RTIR I (2014) 42 (CIC)]
Section 2(f)of the RTI Act,2005 “Information”:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 8th November, 2012 before the CPIO, Govt., Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh; seeking information relating to break up of the class IV staff (Ward Staff) with each officer and each branch of the GMCH-32 through multiple points.
2. Vide CPIO Order dated 7th December, 2012, CPIO denied the requisite information on the ground that the requisite information is not covered u/s. 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which provides the definition of information. However, he wrote that the Applicant may get the requisite documents after inspecting the record on any working day.
Decision Notice:
“Both parties have been heard. Commission observes that the CPIO has not applied his mind while disposing the RTI application and in no way it can be construed that the information sought by the appellant is not covered under the definition of information given u/s. 2(f) of the Act. Simultaneously, CPIO has also stated that the appellant can inspect the requisite documents holding the information. Both these statements are contradictory and reflect the intention of the CPIO to avoid providing the requested information to the appellant. At the hearing also, Commission observed the reluctance of the CPIO in imparting the information which is held on record and is squarely disclosable as per the provisions of the Act. Now, CPIO is directed to provide points-wise information to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of order. Through this order, ‘Show Cause Notice’ is issued to the CPIO for attempting to obstruct the disclosure of the requested information. Date for personal hearing will be provided to him through separate notice.”
[Harmeet singh vs. Government Medical College & Hospital, UT Chandigarh: Decided on 11-12-2013: RTIR I (2014) 47(CIC)]
