Service particulars of colleagues to be furnished for dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion
30 Aug, 2023
Service particulars of colleagues to be furnished if dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion
Background
A S Mallikarjunaswamy, a lecturer in Physics at P. U College, Mysuru argued that he is entitled to know the material particulars of service of the persons indicated in the RTI Application inasmuch as that information provides the substratum for structuring his claims in Service Law such as confirmation, seniority, promotion & the like. The State Information Commission had rejected his appeal and he contended that 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 RTI Act, 2005 was wrongly construed.
The respondent placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors.
Views of the Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court
- There is no scope for invocation 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. since petitioner is not a stranger to the Respondent-institution, but a Lecturer working therein since years.
- It hardly needs to be stated that for working out redressal for the grievances in service, an employee has to have full service particulars of other employees working under the same employer especially when dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like.
- The decision Girish Ramachandra Deshpande had a different fact matrix and therefore the Apex Court held that personal information cannot be furnished.
- The petitioner is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court.
- The petitioner is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order.
- The Principal, P. U College, Mysuru was directed to furnish service particulars of the persons concerned and copies of records in that connection within a period of three weeks, failing which for the delay of each day, the Principal shall pay from his pocket a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner. Further, Principal, P. U College, Mysuru shall also pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses to the petitioner.
Significance
It is a rare case where a distinction has been made as the order is at variance with the Apex Court judgment in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande case. It would be seen whether the public authority goes into appeal and the judgment is able to withstand further scrutiny.
Citation: A S Mallikarjunaswamy v. Karnataka Information Commission and Ors., WP 23695/2022; dated 22.08.2023, HC Karnataka.
FOR THE FULL ORDER OF THE BENCH, PLEASE SEE BELOW.
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2023/CIC/1509
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission