के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BOMAH/A/2024/108302 C Jeyakumar … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Bank of Maharashtra, Chennai …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 28.12.2023 FA : Nil SA : 12.03.2024 CPIO : 30.12.2023 FAO : 18.01.2024 Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. The details of new appointments (from Sub-Staff to Probationary officers) for your Institution (entire Zone) made from 01-01-2015 to 31-03-2023 may be provided year wise.

2. The details of Tamil Nadu candidates (Domicile) out of new appointment (from Sub-Staff to Probationary officers) for your institution (entire Zone) made from

01-01-2015 to 31-03-2023 may be provided year wise.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“We would like to submit that, we are not in a position to provide you the information as sought in your application. The said information is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the Act as no larger public interest justify the disclosure of such information.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.01.2024 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 12.03.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Tulsi Ram Sahoo, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information pertaining to appointments in public sector were required to be placed in public domain for the sake of public interest and transparency.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant did not seek any specific data about the appointments made in the period of 8 years as mentioned in the RTI application. However, the information sought in the RTI application is not only voluminous in nature but the same is also indefinite. Besides, divulging of complete details would have resulted in invasion of privacy of the appointees, 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 appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant not having sought specific information in the RTI application, the CPIO is not supposed to cull out voluminous information pertaining to a period of eight years. No further intervention is called for in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु(cid:389))

िदनांक/Date: 07.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कु मार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Bank of Maharashtra, Chennai Zonal Office, 4, Sivagnanam Road, T-Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 411005

2 C Jeyakumar Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil