के(cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:6981),मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/GBPHT/A/2024/631046 Narender Kumar … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of P.G. Medical Education &

Research, GNCTD …(cid:7079)ितवादीगण/Respondent Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 19.01.2024 FA : 13.03.2024 SA : 20.07.2024 CPIO : 20.02.2024 FAO : 18.04.2024 Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 CORAM Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2024, before the CPIO, Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of P.G. Medical Education & Research (GIPMER), GNCTD, seeking information as under:

“(1) kindly supply the certified copy of complete file (noting & letters side) of RTI application No. F.55-RTI/GIPMER/Estt./2838/2022/16582 dated 14.11.2022.

(2) kindly allow to inspect the complete file of RTI application no. F.55-

RTI/FIPMER/Estt./2838/16582 dated 14.11.2022.”

2. The CPIO, GIPMER, GNCTD, replied vide letter dated 20.02.2024 as under: “Due to the presence of personal information of other people in this file and accordingly as per section (8)(1)(J) of RTI Act 2005 we may not disclose it.”

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated

13.03.2024, before the FAA, GIPMER, GNCTD, inter alia stating as under:

“4. As per Section 7(8) of the Act, it is the duty of the Public Information Officer to communicate the reasons for rejection of the application to the person making the request for information. In his reply in question, the PIO has merely stated the presence of personal information in the file. He remains silent on as to what in his opinion is personal information. Thus the PIO has left his reply dated 20.02.2024 completely vague, ambiguous and incomplete in order to hide the fact that he has not fulfilled his statutory duties of providing the information entrusted to him under the Act. The PIO has snatched my right of producing any judgment passed by any Court of Records in support of my claim that the information which is being treated as 'personal information' by the PIO has been exempted from being treated as 'personal information' by that court of record.

5. I would also like to draw the attention of the Appellate Authority towards the provisions relating to 'severability' contained in Section 10 of the Act which provides that if certain information is not been provided it being exempted, access may be provided to that information which is not exempted. The reply of the PIO dated 20.02.2024 implies that all the pages of the file; and all the paragraphs of all the pages of the file contains 'personal information' which is practically not possible. The PIO has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in section 10 before furnishing his reply to the appellant. This shows huge negligence on the part of PIO.

6. It is pertinent to mention here CIC as well as hon'ble High Court through its catena of judgements has reiterated and explained that "Section 8(1)(j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless there is an element of public interest involved."

xxx

8. I, with reference to above cited case laws would like to bring this knowledge before the First Appellant Authority that the sought information was regarding appointment of JR/SR/PG doctors, since doctors who served and are serving and giving their services to public at large and they are performing their duties in Public Interest. And the Public Information Officer is under statutory obligation to provide any such information.”

4. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024, held as under:

“...On perusal, it is found that the documents in the said file (F.55/RTI/GIPMER/Estt./2838/2022/16582) actually contains personal information of other employees, as stated by CPIO.

Therefore, the contention of the CPIO is a