1. The Appellant filed RTI application dated 14.12.2018 seeking information for the Central Armed Police Forces Examination-2016. He sought consolidated reserve list of all 44 candidates of all CAPF Exam 2015.
2. The copy of CPIO reply is not on record, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2019. FAA's order dated 08.02.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
4. The following were present:—
Appellant: Represented by Gibran Naushad and Abhijeet Swaroop through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Ronita Bhadury, US & CPIO and S.K. Sehgal, DS present through intra-video conference.
5. The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the denial of the Reserve List of 44 candidates under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is erroneous as no such personal information of candidates was ever requested by Appellant. He further stated that nothing in the averred list can be attributed as personal information of a candidate. He furthermore relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 8845 of 2014 titled as UPSC v. Chandan Kumar to assert that relief should be ordered in the matter.
6. The CPIO submitted that UPSC recommended 189 candidates in the first list and after exercise of category movement was concluded by the Government, a requisition for release of 22 candidates was received from the Government which was released by UPSC on 02.06.2017 exhausting all the vacancies reported for the examination in the year 2016. That, the Reserve List maintained by UPSC for this specific and limited purpose ceased to exist after the requisitioned candidates from the Reserve List were released exhausting all the vacancies. She lastly submitted that the candidates remaining in the List are non-recommended candidates, disclosure of whose details would attract the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
7. The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the Reserve List as it originally existed has been sought for in the RTI Application.
Decision
8. The Commission observes upon a careful consideration of the facts on record as well as from the contentions of the parties during the hearing that the conflicting interests of transparency in disclosure of the Reserve List and privacy of the not-recommended candidates can be mitigated by applying the provision of severability as per Section 10 of the RTI Act.
9. Adverting to the ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 8845 of 2014 titled as UPSC v. Chandan Kumar, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the original Reserve List as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant after severing the names of the not recommended candidates. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due to the Commission.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Comments