ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:

 Shri Gobinda Chandra Ghosh, working as Armed Guard in India Exchange Place Branch of the public authority (Union Bank of India) appeared in written / practical test under seniority channel for promotion from subordinate to clerical cadre 2021-22 on 26th March 2022 vide call letter no.

FGMO:KOL:HRD:1556:2022 dated 22.01.2022. According to him, despite his very satisfactory performance he remained unsuccessful in getting the promotion and, hence, want to get mark list and desire to check his performance. Since I am known to Shri Gobinda Chandra Ghosh for a long time, he approached me for obtaining the mark list and copy of his performance. In view of his legitimate desire, I request the CPIO to furnish detailed, clear, accurate and specific information to me as below in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. Copy of his call letter is enclosed as supportive document to my RTI.

(i) Subject-wise mark list of Shri Gobinda Chandra Ghosh including mark obtained in the interview along with cut off marks (i.e. the marks secured by the last promoted candidate in the merit list) (ii) Copy of his performance in subject-wise written test and also in interview.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The sought information in query (i) and (ii) are held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and is third party information which is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Hence the same cannot be disclosed.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.09.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.10.2022 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 22.11.2022.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Lalit Kumar, D.G.M, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the respondent was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought. A writtern submission of the appellant is reproduced as under:-

“I have the honour to state that by availing the permission given in the notice dated 23.02.2024 for hearing scheduled on 14.03.2024 on the above-

mentioned second appeal preferred in respect of my RTI application, I am making my submission in continuation with my complaint before your Honour as under:

For refusing to furnish the information against two items, CPIO stated that information supplied by the third party (here Shri Gobinda Ghosh) and the same is held by the Bank in fiduciary capacity but, the CPIO did not comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act, for disclosing the information supplied by the third party. It is not understandable how the marks obtained by Shri Gobinda Ghosh in the examination was supplied by him to the Bank for, had that been so what was the necessity for making RTI application to obtain said information which was already in his possession.

Subsequently, it was found that the provision of supplying such mark list to unsuccessful candidates is already in existence of Bank’s policy, which was circulated by the bank through Staff Circular No. 5613 dated 09.09.2009. Said provision has not yet amended to negate the same. The provision in clause 4.19 in that policy is as the following:

“Subject-wise mark list along with cut off marks (i.e. the marks secured by the last promoted candidate in the merit list) will be communicated to respective unsuccessful candidates of both the Channels