Information regarding the basis for selection of proposals, reason for not selecting a proposal by DD etc. - CIC: provide profile of the committee members who had assessed the suitability & comments given by the committee members on her programme
10 Apr, 2014ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 03.09.2012 under the RTI Act. CPIO responded on 17.01.2012. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 25.10.2012. FAA did not adjudicate the appeal. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 25.04.2013.
Hearing
2. Appellant and respondent were present before the Commission.
3. Appellant referred to her RTI application and stated that she was seeking information regarding the reason for notifying second commissioning without concluding the earlier exercise, basis for selection of only 17 proposals against 79 proposals, reason for not selecting a proposal, profile of committee members, etc.
4. Appellant stated that she was a candidate for considering commissioning of some programmes in Doordarshan and she applied for the musical category. Appellant stated that she performed very well in the interview and evaluation and the committee members were impressed by her performance and amply indicated this to her. Appellant stated that she was under the impression that she would get through but she was shocked that her programme was rejected by the committee. Appellant stated that in this regard she sought information in the RTI application.
5. Appellant stated that she has received a reply from the respondent but complete information was not given to her.
6. Appellant stated she wanted the information on the following points:
(a) profile of the committee members who had rejected her programme, in order to know whether they are competent enough to take a decision on musical programmes;
(b) comments given by the committee members on her programme.
7. Respondent stated that there were three or four members in the committee and each member gave marks for a particular programme. Respondent stated that the marks were added and ranks were given.
8. Respondent stated that selection of programme was based on the marks given by the committee and according to the rank they did the selection of programme.
9. Respondent stated that the profile of the selection committee was denied under 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. of the RTI Act.
10. There is no reason to deny information to the appellant on the points mentioned in para 6 above.
11. Respondent must provide the information on the following points:
(a) profile of the committee members who had assessed the suitability of the appellant; and
(b) comments given by the committee members on her programme.
Decision
12. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information as per para 11 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Reehana Khan v. Prasar Bharti in Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000710/VS/06071