SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 921

केीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई दली, New Delhi – 110067

ितीय अपील संया / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2022/141378

Subhash Mohan Snehi

… अपीलकता/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO:

Punjab National Bank

Mandi, H. P.

…ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 24.01.2022

FA

: 24.06.2022

SA

: 31.08.2022

CPIO : 02.02.2022

FAO : 13.07.2022

Hearing : 01.02.2024

Date of Decision: 02.02.2024

CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner

_ANANDI RAMALINGAM

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.01.2022 seeking information on the following points:

    (i) Your esteemed Bank sent requisition to the concerned employment exchanges for sponsoring the names of eligible candidates for being appointed to the post of Safai Karamchari reserved for disabled person. Since the aforesaid Akshay Kumar is having 'locomotor disability', therefore, his name was also sponsored and accordingly, he submitted all the requisite documents i.e. his educational and other certificates to your Bank through registered post dated 09.04.2021 since the last date for submission of documents was 17.04.2021. Although Akshay Kumar fulfills all the requisite qualification/eligibility criteria for being appointed to the post of Safai Karamchari reserved for disabled person, but till date, he has not received any response in this regard. Kindly supply the detailed information regarding the status/fate of the application of Akshay Kumar son of Shri Chater Singh, resident of Village Jodwaing, P.O. & Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P., Pin-175121 regarding his appointment for the post of Safai Karamchari in Punjab National Bank.
    (ii) How many candidates' names were sponsored for the post of Safai Karamchari meant for disabled persons in Punjab National Bank? Kindly supply the detailed information/documentation, with names of such candidates.
    (iii) If any other candidate has been given appointment to the post of Safai Karamchari meant for disabled persons in Punjab National Bank, kindly supply the information along with documents of such selected/ appointed candidate..

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.02.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

    (i) The desired Information/ documents cannot be provided as it relates to personal information of third party and exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
    (ii) Employment exchange Mandi sponsored total 77 names for part time sweeper recruitment-2021. Further desired information/ documents cannot be provided as it relates to personal information of third party and exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
    (iii) As per notification dated 19.02.2021 no vacancy for disabled person was notified.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.06.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 13.07.2022 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 31.08.2022.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pradeep Kumar, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the list of candidates selected for the posts of Safaai Karamchaari.

7. The respondent while defending their case submitted that the candidates Employment exchange Mandi sponsored total 77 names for part time sweeper during recruitment in 2021 and no vacancy for disabled person was notified. However, the names, documentation of the candidates contained personal information, hence, was exempted under the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties, and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 02.02.2022. Further, the cumulative information having been provided, there appears to be no public interest warranting disclosure of the information pertaining to third parties. Therefore, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO and the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top