CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00218/1491
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00218
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.Som Nath Goyal,
House No. 307,
Housing Board Colony,
Jind, Haryana.
Respondent 1 : Mr. Kanhaiya Chaudhary,
Asstt. Commissioner (Admn & Fin.) & CPIO
Kendruya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110062.
RTI application filed on : 24/02/2008
PIO replied : 22/07/2008
First appeal filed on : 28/07/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 03/09/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 13/10/2008
Detail of required information:-
The appellant had asked in RTI application that kindly supply me the Photostat certified
copy of the application from submitted by Sarika for PGT in Physics together with the
photostat copy of certificate / documents on the basis of which she has applied under OBC
category and she had been called upon to appear for written examination at Kendriya
Visyalaya Sector-47, Chandigarh on 12/05/2008.
The PIO replied:-
The required information cannot be provided to the applicant as per section 8 I (j)
of the RTI Act, 2005.
The First Appellate Authority ordered: –
“In case even at the time of preliminary scrutiny, a candidate is allowed to appear
at the written examination or even if called for interview and such candidate does not
fulfill any of the laid down selection criteria, his/her candidature will automatically be
treated as cancelled even after issuing letter of appointment.
Whereas, the application of the appellant was not accompanied with the application
fees in the prescribed mode as per the notification G.S.R. 336 dated 16th September, 2005.
The RTI (regulation of fee and cost) Rules, 2005 Para 3 is an essential requirement for
processing the applications under the provisions of the RTI Act. The draft sent by him
which was in favour of the CPIO, KV Sangathan was returned with the request to sent it
under Rule 3 of the notification.
Whereas, the application under the RTI Act, is considered only when it is
accompanied with the prescribed mode of fee in the name of the Public Authority for
processing the application and the information is supplied in accordance with the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It may be noted that there are certain information. Which
are exempt under the RTI. The photostat copies of the certificate of Ms. Sarika cannot be
provided. These documents pertain to third party, which cannot be disclosed/provided to
any other person under the provision of Section 8(1) (j).
Whereas, the information conveyed vide letter dated 22/07/2008 by making
reference of the noting of DC (Admn) dated 21/07/2008 is in order and the date mentioned
in the stamp on the enclosed sheet was affixed by the RTI section at the time of
authentication of the documents while dispatching the same”.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr.Som Nath Goyal
Respondent: Mr. Srivastav representing Mr. Kanhaiya Chaudhary PIO
The PIO contends that they feel that the information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j).
The information is not of a nature which could be considered an intrusion on privacy and it
has been given in the course of getting an appointment which is a Public activity. Hence
the information would have to given. The PIO may inform the third party to give her
objections as per the provision of Section 11. After taking into account the third party’s
objections and considering the exemptions of Section 8 (1) the PIO will take appropriate
action.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will follow the provisions of Section 11 and then take appropriate
action. He will ensure that a final resolution is obtained before 1 March 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 04, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)