Appellant: Information such as Appointments, Postings, Promotions etc. relate to public activity - PIO submitted a revised reply addressing the appellant’s contentions in her second appeal which she claimed to have not received - CIC: e-mail the letter

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

A. With reference to her email sent on 22/01/2021, provide the following information:

A.1. Provide the status of the above said email.

A.2. Provide copy of the noting recorded in the matter. B. Also, furnish the following information:

B.1. How many candidates were considered for promotion to the post of Scientist –F from the post of Scientist- E, in the interviews held from 28/11/2020 to 03/11/2020.

B.2. Total marks allocated for the above interview.

B.3. Number of candidates selected for promotion to the post of Scientist - F from the post of Scientist-E and the particulars of the selected candidates.

B.4. And other related information.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant in her second appeal submitted that a reply was received from the CPIO on 12.05.2021 after a delay of 55 days.

She further submitted that the reply to Serial Number 1 & 2 of Table 4 stating that the matter is sub-Judice is not in order as there is no embargo on the declaration of her result as was done in the case of other candidates, who attended the interview for promotion to the post of Scientist-F and as such her selection in the said interview shall be subject to finalization of the O.A. No.21/689/2020 at the Hon'ble CAT.

The replies furnished for Serial numbers 4, 6, 7 & part of 9 of Table 4 stating that “information is not held” is not clear and therefore, not in order. She pressed for the information, if existing.

She further submitted that the reply furnished for part of the Serial Number 5 of Table 4 invoking section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information pertaining to promotion lists or promotion “cannot be denied to the parliament or a state legislature “and therefore, “shall not be denied to any person”. As such various decisions of CIC have clarified that the information such as Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions, Gradations etc. of public servants related to the public activity and are hence not personal information for the purpose of section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of The Act. As such there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person in the extant case as it is merely a service matter of the public servant.

She further contested the reply furnished for part of the Serial Number 9 of Table 4 regarding her gradings in the APAR/AWR, the information is provided only partially, also, the marks obtained in the interview was not provided though there was no such embargo in this regard.

The CPIO’s representative could not provide the despatch details of the letter dated 28.10.2022.

Observations:

The Commission observed that the FAA had provided a suitable point-wise reply. However, a revised reply on Serial numbers 4, 6, 7 & part of 9 of Table 4 can be given as, stating that “information is not held” is not clear whether the same is available with any other authority. The CPIO, in his written submissions dated 28.10.2022 submitted a revised reply addressing the appellant’s contentions in her second appeal. However, the appellant submitted that she had not yet received the letter dated 28.10.2022 and therefore, cannot offer comments.

The appellant has to wait for the disposal of the OA in CAT for redressal of her grievance. However, on receipt of the letter dated 28.10.2022 which is being sent to her by e-mail she can send a letter to the CPIO pointing out the deficiencies if any as per the RTI Act on points no. 4, 6, 7 & part of 9 of Table 4 and the CPIO ought to send a reply to that as the letter dated 28.10.2022 was severely delayed and his representative could not provide the despatch details too.

Decision:

The letter dated 28.10.2022 and its annexure shall be sent to the appellant by e-mail within 3 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The above order shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication from the appellant, if any.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. P Jhancy Sreenivasa v. National Informatics Centre, File no.: - CIC/NICHQ/A/2021/633650, Date of Decision: 01/11/2022