Yashovardhan Azad, IC and Bimal Julka, CIC:—
Information sought and background of the case:
1. Vide RTI application dated 10.09.2015, the appellant sought information regarding every selected as well as rejected candidate who appeared in walk in interview held in July 2015 for the post of regular Senior Residents in Orthopaedic Surgery Department.
2. The CPIO furnished information in part qua the selected candidates, however, invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny information regarding the unsuccessful candidates. The FAA upheld the decision of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
3. Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant states to have received information w.r.t. 11 selected candidates. However, he is aggrieved inasmuch as CPIO denied details of all unsuccessful candidates. He states that the information is not exempt from disclosure and the same warrants disclosure for greater transparency in public appointments. The appellant further states that documents furnished to him were not authenticated by the CPIO.
4. Per contra, the CPIO seeks refuge under Section 8(1)(j) to deny information regarding the unsuccessful candidates.
DECISION
5. After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds the reply of CPIO to be in line with the law. Information qua the selected candidates has already been furnished to the appellant. The argument advanced by the appellant w.r.t. information regarding the unsuccessful candidates is misplaced. The cause of transparency is well served upon disclosure of information regarding the selected candidates, who have become entitled for public service. Disclosure of information regarding the unsuccessful candidates would rather embarrass the respective candidates and no useful purpose would be served by curtailing their right of privacy. Moreso, the information is retained by the respondent public authority in fiduciary capacity and apart from exemption under clause (j), the information sought also qualifies for exemption under clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Thus, the present appeal fails and the decision of CPIO is upheld.
6. However, the CPIO shall furnish information/documents regarding the selected candidates afresh to the appellant after certifying the same; within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
ADJUNCT ORDER:
Date of Hearing: 13.08.2020
Note: Aggrieved due to non-receipt of any information from the Public Authority despite order of the Commission, the Appellant filed an application for non-compliance vide letter dated 17.06.2017.
Hearing:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
8. The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Nagar, CPIO & SMO, Safdarjung Hospital, Mr. Ratan Singh, UDC and Mr. Nitesh, LDC;
9. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that in compliance with the direction of the Commission, the certified copies of the selected candidates was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.07.2018. The delay occurred because of non-receipt of the decision from the Commission. Nonetheless, the delay caused in furnishing the reply was deeply regretted and he apologized for the same. In addition, it was informed that the desired information had already been shared with the Appellant at the application/Appeal stage also, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. The Commission was in receipt of a compliance letter dated 18.07.2018 wherein it was submitted that they have sent the certified copies of the selected candidates to the Applicant. They tendered unconditional apology for the inadvertent delay due to oversight. The Respondent assured that such incidence will not occur in future.
DECISION
11. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, the Respondent is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care.
12. The Non-compliance proceedings stand dropped.