Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4130
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Dr. PRAKASH AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal – Respondent
CIC/MNITB/A/2023/603417
Public servants have a lower degree of privacy protection under the RTI Act, allowing for disclosure of personal information when public interest is demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - RTI application seeking information regarding recruitment and qualifications of faculty at MANIT Bhopal - CPIO's response deemed appropriate under the Act, with exemptions cited for personal details - Appellant's claim of incomplete information not upheld. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Privacy of Public Servants - The court emphasized that public servants have a lower degree of privacy protection compared to private individuals, allowing for public interest disclosure under certain circumstances. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought detailed information regarding recruitment and qualifications of faculty at MANIT Bhopal through an RTI application, which was partially denied by the CPIO citing exemptions under the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The CPIO's response was found to be appropriate, and the appellant's arguments regarding the completeness of the information were not sustained.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act concerning public servants' information and the adequacy of the CPIO's response.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the CPIO's response was appropriate and that the appellant's interpretation of the exemptions was incorrect, reaffirming the principle that public servants have a different standard of privacy.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2022 seeking information regarding recruitment on various post (ESP for Academics & Departmental Faculty) of MNAIT Bhopal on the following points:
- (i) “Kindly provide copy of the name & officer who responsible for MANIT official Letter-Pad design because mistakes noticed on the copy of Latest Online Advertisement of Walk-in-Interview for Appointment of Temporary Faculty via Letter No. AB/Estt./Tem.Fac./2022/430 Dated:19 /07/2022. (Copy enclosed in supporting docs for your ready reference).
- (ii) Certified list or Copy of the data sheet of all MANIT Academic & Faculty Staff (Permanent, Temporary, Contractual, guest etc.) that must contain module of their recruitment/appointment details, qualifications, date of joining since 01.01.2005 to till date. (iii) Certified list or copy of the data sheet of all MANIT Academic & Faculty Staff (Permanent, Temporary, Contractual, guest etc.)
- on whom Govt/official/departmental inquiry initiated towards their recruitment in MANIT. If possible, then also provide results of inquiry on their employment (i.e. continued or suspended/terminated etc.). (iv) Certified list of Case Number, Court Name & Contact Details of Petitioners on whose petition officials of MANIT Bhopal becomes respondents in various court matters.
- (v) Copy of the list that contains details of various recruitment drive in MANIT Bhopal for post of Academics & Faculty staff from 01.01.2005 to till date”. …etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “Point (i) – The error happened during the conversion of word (doc.) file into .pdf file.
Point (ii) - Qualification of the staff is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. However, other information as desired by the applicant since 01.01.2005 requires compilation. Hence, the applicant is requested to visit MANIT Bhopal within 15 days of receiving this letter for referring to the sought details. Also, advance intimation regarding visit of institute may please be provided.
Point (iii) - Information is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point (iv) - As per current available records, the details of the court cases are enclosed as Annexure 'A'. However, contact details of the petitioners are exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. 2005. Applicant is requested to refer to the website of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Hon'ble District Court of Bhopal for details of the cases wherein MANIT Bhopal is a respondent.
Point (v) - Please refer Annexure 'B'.
The advertisement for the year 2019 & 2021 are available on the website of the Institute.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.01.2023.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Gaurav Dwivedi, CPIO, attended the hearing through video/audio conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete. He argued that he had sought the name of the person responsible for error pointed out by him point no. (i) of the RTI application and instead of providing the name of the person accountable for such error, the CPIO had given an explanation in response to his RTI request. He further contended that the details of qualifications and recruitment details of public servants were not exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, hence, the claim of the respondent for denial of information was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the error/ mistakes noticed on the copy of La
