Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Jayshree Dubey (Dr.) v. The Central Information Commissioner & Others
Writ Petition No. 39771 of 2024 (Jabalpur); Decided on 3.4.2025
(1) Right to Information Act, 2005 -- S. 8(1)(j) -- exemption from disclosure of personal information -- qualification or appointment to public office or educational certificates including experience certificates cannot be said to be private information -- that information is always within public domain -- therefore, educational, technical qualification and experience certificate of selected candidates, file noting, etc. cannot be said to be hit by provisions contained in S. 8(1)(j). [Para 15
(2) Right to Information Act, 2005 -- S. 11(1) proviso -- third party information -- disclosure sought is in regard to educational, technical qualification and experience certificate, file noting etc. of candidates who participated in selection process -- further, there is admission that appointment of one of such candidates was illegal -- held -- such information will fall within proviso to S. 11 (1) -- its disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to interests of such third party, therefore, such information can be disclosed. [Para 18
¼1½ lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 && /kkjk 8¼1½¼¥½ && O;fäxr lwpuk ds çdV fd, tkus ls NwV && yksd in ds fy, vgZrk ;k fu;qfä vFkok 'kSf{kd çek.ki=ksa dks] ftuesa vuqHko çek.ki= lfEefyr gSa] futh lwpuk ugha dgk tk ldrk && og lwpuk lnSo lkoZtfud Kku{ks= esa gksrh gS && vr%] p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh 'kSf{kd rduhdh vgZrk vkSj vuqHko çek.ki=] Qkby fVIi.kh] bR;kfn dks /kkjk 8¼1½¼¥½ esa varfoZ"V mica/kksa ls vkgr ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 15
¼2½ lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 && /kkjk 11¼1½ ijarqd && ijO;fä lwpuk && bZfIlr çdVhdj.k p;u çfØ;k esa Hkkx ysus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dh 'kSf{kd rduhdh vgZrk vkSj vuqHko çek.ki=] Qkby fVIi.kh] bR;kfn ds laca/k esa gS && blds vfrfjä] ;g Loh—r gS fd bu vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls ,d dh fu;qfä voSèk Fkh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ,slh lwpuk /kkjk 11 ¼1½ ds ijarqd ds varxZr vk,xh && bldk çdVhdj.k ,sls ijO;fä ds fgrksa dh fdlh laHkkfor vigkfu ;k {kfr ls dgha vf/kd egRoiw.kZ gS] vr%- ,slh lwpuk çdV dh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 18
ORDER
1. This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 24.6.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Central Information Commission refusing certain information as sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act on the ground that such information is hit by the provisions contained in section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and so also by the provisions contained in section 11 of the said Act.
2. It is mentioned in the impugned order that information related to third party cannot be provided as denied by the third party and this information cannot be provided under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is further mentioned that information related to third party cannot be provided under rule 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Shri Dhananjay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents admit that the authority which passed the order has wrongly mentioned 'Rule 11' whereas it is 'section 11'.
4. The application which was filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act is Annexure P-3, in which petitioner had sought following information :--
| S. No. | Information sought by the applicant | Available Information |
| 1 | Total amount of alary and NPS contribution paid/given to Dr. Prateek Maheshwari | Information related to third party cannot| be provided as denied by the third party. |
| 2 | Enquiry report by both the internal committees against the charge sheeted employees in relation to the illegal selection of Dr. Prateek Maheshwari | This information cannot be provided under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 |
| 3 | Copy of relieving letter given to Dr. Pratek Maheshwari. | Information related to third party cannot be provded under Rule 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. |
| 4 | Details of any recovery made from the people responsible for illegal appointment and salary paid to the illegally appointed person. Or the disciplinary action taken against them. | Not available. |
| 5 | Copy of application for the post of Associate Professor of Dr. Dhanya Bhasker and Dr. Nimai Das along with the documents related to experience (appointment and relieving letters). | Information related to the third party cannot be provided as denied by the third parties. |
| 6 | Reason behind non joining by Dr. Pankaj Kumar Shah and Dr. Narandra Singh Thakur who were waitlisted for the position of Associate Professor, Technical forestry. | Please ask specific documents under the clause 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. |
5. Petitioner's case is that in the year 2000 certain selections were undertaken by the Indian Institute of Forest Management for giving appointments to the post of Associate Professor and Professor and it has come on record and has been admitted by the authorities that the appointment given to one Dr. Prateek Maheshwari on the post of Associate Professor was illegal, inasmuch as he was not having the necessary qualification as can be seen from Annexure P-13, which is the proceedings of the meeting to review the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee of Faculty Recruitment constituted vide order No. IIFM/PERS/PSC51/2020/165 dated 30th January 2020, wherein the three member committee has admitted that "during the review it was found that the candidates who were not having post Ph.D. experience of 3 years’ in case of Associate Professor and 7 years’ experience in case of Professor were not shortlisted for interview which was |not mentioned in the qualification communicated by MoEF vide letter F No.12-6/2020-RT dated 20 t h November, 2012 while revising the Pay scales of faculty members of IIFM at par with the pay scales of IIMs/IITs as per the recommendations of 6 th Central Pay Commission (6th CPC)."
6. Thus, it is pointed out that the information sought is in the domain of illegal appointments, expenditure made on such illegally appointed persons and in regard to qualification and experience certificates of persons who were given appointment, whic
Personal information disclosure under RTI Act requires consent; public interest must balance privacy rights.
Personal information exempt from RTI disclosure unless larger public interest justifies; third party must receive notice and hearing under Section 11 before any disclosure order.
Disclosure of information under the RTI Act must respect third-party privacy and fiduciary exemptions unless public interest justifies disclosure, reinforcing the balance between transparency and pri....
Application forms with personal details of recruitment candidates exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) as unwarranted privacy invasion absent larger public interest; public authorities must proactively d....
Candidate application forms with personal details exempt from disclosure under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent public interest; public authorities must proactively disclose recruitment details on websites....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal information sought under the Right to Information Act must have a relationship to a public activity or interest and its disclosure sh....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
