Copies of testimonials submitted by the candidates at the time of their appointments was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - CIC: Mere allegation of corruption cannot imply larger public interest; No further intervention of the CIC is required
7 Feb, 2019O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur seeking information on six points, including, inter-alia, (i) names of nine displaced persons who were appointed as electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts in February, 2015 and (ii) copies of their training certificates from Industrial Training Institute (ITI).
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO denied information under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Balmukund Ojha and the respondent Shri Pranav Verma, Senior Manager (HR), NTPC Ltd., Bhagalpur attended the hearing through videoconferencing. The respondent Shri S. Nandan, Asstt. General Manager and CPIO, NTPC Ltd., Corporate Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he has sought information pertaining to the nine electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts who were given permanent appointment by the officials of NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in February, 2015. However, the CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. He stated that certain electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts were given permanent appointment on the basis of forged training certificates. Hence, larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information sought should have been disclosed to him.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant has sought copies of training certificates, award certificates and affidavits pertaining to the nine electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts who were given permanent appointment by the officials of NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. The said information sought for is held by the NTPC in a fiduciary capacity and hence, the same is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The appellant Shri Balmukund Ojha and the respondent Shri Pranav Verma, Senior Manager (HR), NTPC Ltd., Bhagalpur attended the hearing through videoconferencing. The respondent Shri S. Nandan, Asstt. General Manager and CPIO, NTPC Ltd., Corporate Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he has sought information pertaining to the nine electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts who were given permanent appointment by the officials of NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur in February, 2015. However, the CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. He stated that certain electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts were given permanent appointment on the basis of forged training certificates. Hence, larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information sought should have been disclosed to him.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant has sought copies of training certificates, award certificates and affidavits pertaining to the nine electricians/fitters at Godda and Bhagalpur Districts who were given permanent appointment by the officials of NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. The said information sought for is held by the NTPC in a fiduciary capacity and hence, the same is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 06.01.2017. With respect to the allegation of corruption levelled by the appellant, the respondent stated that the appellant had filed a complaint in this regard vide letter dated 03.03.2018 without submitting his identification proof. A follow up letter dated 23.03.2018 was sent to the appellant by the CVO office requesting him to provide his identification details. Since, no response was provided by the appellant, the complaint was concluded as an anonymous complaint and closed.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the appellant has sought copies of testimonials submitted by the candidates at the time of their appointments. The Commission observes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2013 in Union Public Service Commission vs. Gourhari Kamila, C.A. No. 6362 of 2013 has held that the information relating to qualification/experience of other candidates, could only be divulged if there is a larger public interest. The Commission further observes that a full bench of this Commission in its order dated 09/06/2016 (File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001062 – Arun Kumar Agrawal vs SEBI) has held as under:
“18….. Thus, mere leveling of allegation can hardly be said to satisfy the condition of disclosure being made in larger public interest.”
7. In view of the above-cited judgment, mere allegation of corruption cannot imply larger public interest. The Commission thus observes that an appropriate response has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: Balmukund Ojha v. CPIO, NTPC Limited in Second Appeal No. CIC/NTPCO/A/2017/153114, Date 28.12.2018