$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7360/2017 THE CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr Rahul Sharma and Mr C.K. Bhatt, Adv.

versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 25.08.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM No. 30372/2017

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7360/2017 & CM 30370/2017 (Stay), CM 30371/2017 (Directions to R-1 for records)

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 18.01.2017 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'CIC') directing the petitioner to disclose the agenda item pertaining to respondent no.2 along with the minutes of the meeting of Civil Services Board (hereafter 'CSB'). The petitioner contends that the said information is exempt from disclosure under clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act'). It is also contended that such information is confidential in nature and is available with the petitioner in its fiduciary capacity and, thus, is also exempt from disclosure under clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the Act.

4. Respondent no.2 is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of 1991 batch of the Haryana State Cadre. He had filed an application on 06.07.2015, inter alia, seeking the following information:-

"1. Whether any agenda item was placed before the Civil Services Board regarding my deputation as Joint Secretary to Government of India under the Central Staffing Scheme-

2014.

2. If so, a copy of the agenda item and the recommendation made by the Civil Services Board may be supplied. Ashok Khemka, IAS (Haryana: 1991) 6 July, 2015."

5. The aforesaid request for information was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the petitioner stating the following:-

"With an understanding that the requested information is to be reckoned as adjuncts for an ACC proposal / note the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005."

6. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), inter alia, contesting the claim that the information sought by respondent no.2 was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the Act. The relevant grounds urged by the said respondent before the FAA are set out below:-

"1. The matter is not pending before the Civil Services Board, which has already taken a decision in July-2014.

2. The ACC was to consider my appointment as Joint Secretary in GOI against CSS-2014, which period expired on 31.03.2015. The decision of the CSB cannot be given effect to by the ACC any longer.

3. The CPIOs reply that the requested information is to be reckoned as adjuncts for an ACC proposal/note is a falsehood.

4. The information which are contemplated to be considered as adjuncts for ACC proposal/notes in the future are not covered under section 8 (l)(i). If this were true, then all information is potentially exempt under section 8(l)(i), rendering RTI Act infructous."

7. FAA rejected respondent no.2's appeal by an order dated 13.08.2015 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the FAA, respondent no.2 preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, before the CIC, which was allowed by the impugned order.

8. Before the FAA as well as before the CIC, the petitioner had also contended that the question, whether information with regard to matters before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) is exempt from disclosure, was sub judice before a Division Bench of this Court. The said contention was advanced before this Court as well.

9. The petitioner states that under the Central Staffing Scheme, the task of finalising the panel of officers, which are to be recommended for the posts of Under Secretary and above to serve the Centre on dep