Central Information Commission
No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01439-SM dated 30.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 20.05.2009
Appellant : Shri Ashish Kumar Bhargava
Respondent : Ordnance Factory Khamaria
The Appellant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri P.K. Sarkar, JWM is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 30 April 2008 for
the certified copies of a number of documents concerning one Smt Krishna
Shrivastava, an employee of the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. The CPIO, in his reply
dated 28 April 2008, returned his application on the ground that he had not deposited
the application fee as per the rules. In a subsequent letter dated 9 May 2008, the CPIO
informed him that the information sought could not be disclosed as it came under the
purview of Section 8(1) (j) as the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this
reply, he preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 21 May 2008
which that authority disposed of in his order dated 28 May 2008 by endorsing the view
of the CPIO. It is against this order that he has come to the CIC in second appeal.
3. The Appellant has informed the Commission that he would not be able to
attend the hearing in person on account of lack of resources. The Respondent was
present and made his submissions. The background of the case as it emerges from the
contents of the appeal and the submissions of the Respondent is that the Public
Authority had recruited some employees based on an open advertisement in which the
Appellant himself was also a candidate. On complaint, an enquiry had been conducted
and some of those appointed were terminated for not fulfilling the relevant eligibility
criteria. Those employees had gone before the Hon’ble High Court in a Writ Petition
and that the Court had ordered fresh enquiry into the complaints. After the second
enquiry, those employees who had been terminated were taken back into service.
From this account, it is clear that the second enquiry following the order of the Court
had concluded differently from that of the first enquiry. Obviously, this raises doubts
No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01439-SM
about the transparency of the entire recruitment process and the inquiries conducted
by the Public Authority. It is in the interest of transparency that this entire matter,
especially both the enquiry reports are placed in the public domain so that no doubt
about the fair play and the objectivity of the Public Authority in the matter of
recruitment remains.
4. It is noted that both the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority had found the
information sought to be in the nature of personal information about third parties
without any relation to any public activity or interest the disclosure of which would
cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. We do not find this argument just and
right. What the Appellant has wanted to know relates to the inquiries conducted by
the Public Authority in this matter and some of the documents concerning the
candidates who had been appointed. One of these documents is the experience
certificate produced by one of the candidates. It is a document held by the Public
Authority. There is no ground to deny such information under Section 8(1) (j) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act.
5. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working
days from the receipt of this order copies of all the documents he had sought in his
application dated 30 April 2008. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01439-SM