CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01463
Dated, the 09th March, 2009.
Appellant : Shri U.R.M. Raju
Respondents : Visakhapatnam Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing on 02.03.2009 pursuant to Commission’s
notice dated 30.01.2009. Appellant was absent when called. Respondents were
represented by Shri T. Venu Gopal, Personnel Officer.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 18.06.2008 contained the following
queries:-
“1) Copies of applications received for the post of Dy CVO, in
response to the advertisement issued on 7-12-07.
2) Copy of the office note processed from 7-12-2007 to till 16-6-08,
on the above subject
3) Copy of the scrutiny committee recommendations in the above
subject,
4) Copies of the call letters sent to the candidates (excluding my call
letter),
5) Copies of note file processed on the selection committee
constitution,
6) Copy of CVO / VPT’s letter in the above matter, if any,
7) Copy of the result of the selection conducted on 14-6-08 (excluding
the marks statements)”
3. These were replied to by the CPIO on 04.07.2008 and the first-appeal was
decided by the Appellate Authority on 02.09.2008. Thereafter, appellant moved
the Commission in second-appeal.
4. Respondents’ plea in defence of not providing the information to the
appellant is generally focused on the fact that the recruitment processes in the
matter of appointment of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer regarding to which this
information pertains, was still not completed and disclosing the information now
shall be premature and contrary to public interest. It is the respondents’
contention that disclosure of any information about an ongoing recruitment
process of a key official of the public authority, is not in public interest because
premature disclosures complicate the recruitment process through intrusive
AT-09032009-15.doc
Page 1 of 3
actions of interested parties and expose those who are involved in this process to
wholly avoidable pressures and even intimidations.
5. Appellant, in his written-submission, has stated that the reasons quoted by
PIO and the Appellate Authority were flimsy, irrelevant and against the
provisions of RTI Act. He has contended that no information was fiduciary in
nature to warrant its non-disclosure. He has asserted that, what he is seeking is
disclosure of information and not any redressal of grievance.
6. The position taken by the respondents is in conformity with Section 124
of the Indian Evidence Act, which states “no public officer shall be compelled to
disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers
that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.”
7. Respondents’ case is that the file to which appellant has attempted to gain
access through the RTI Act contains several communications from different
sources, public authorities and public servants having a bearing on the current
process of recruitment of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer of the Visakhapatnam
Port Trust (VPT). The entire correspondence has been done confidentially in
order to guard its integrity. The sole judge as to whether disclosure will harm
public interest is the public authority concerned. That decision by the public
authority has been made, i.e. to maintain confidentiality of the process and the
file in which that process is extant.
8. If information regarding current recruitment processes is authorized to be
disclosed even before such a process is completed, it is possible that it would
pave the way for wholly absurd claims for disclosures. For example, a petitioner
may, citing precedent, demand information regarding various aspects of a
recruitment process undertaken by the Public Service Commissions and, such
other recruitment bodies, even before such a process is completed and thereby
throw the entire process into disarray. No public interest shall be served by such
disclosures. On the contrary, such premature disclosures shall have a deleterious
impact on public interest and will serve no public purpose.
9. In the context of the above, the application of this appellant needs to be
examined in terms of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The information, which the
appellant seeks to access, is admittedly held confidential by the public authority
⎯ VPT. In their judgement disclosure of this information would irreversibly
damage the ongoing recruitment process and compromise fair and objective
decision-making by the competent authority. This, according to them, is the
reason why the requested information should not be authorized to be disclosed
within the provision of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Their argument is
supported by the provisions of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.
AT-09032009-15.doc
Page 2 of 3
10. In view of what has been stated above, I’m in agreement with the
respondents that regardless of whether the requested information is in itself
disclosable, it should not be allowed to be disclosed at this point in time when the
recruitment process is still current and the final decision has not been made. In
my view, disclosing this information shall be contrary to public interest as
mentioned in Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.
11. In view of the above, I’m not willing to authorize disclosure of this
information at this point in time. However, should the appellant so wish, he can
seek the same set of information after the decision in this recruitment process has
been made, through another RTI-application before the CPIO. For now, no
disclosure of information as requested can be authorized.
12. Appeal disallowed.
13. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-09032009-15.doc
Page 3 of 3