Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Personal information in application form of civil services examination provided by candidate is held exempt from disclosure under RTi Act

Central Information Commission (CIC): Personal information provided by the candidates in application forms of Civil Services Examination are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, held Central Information Commission and therefore, rejected the application filed by the applicant, who sought two sets of information, namely, the copies of the application forms of some 100 odd candidates who had appeared in the Civil Service (Main) Examination 2011 and the list of those candidates who had been invited to the interview but not recommended, along with their marks separately for the written and interview. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) refused to disclose this information on the ground that it was personal information of the candidates and exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The said stand of CPIO was also maintained in appeal. Confirming the view, Chief Information Commissioner, Satyananda Mishra said, “We are entirely in agreement with both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. The information sought is clearly personal information of third party candidates who had appeared in the Civil Services Examination. There is no obvious public interest involved in disclosing this information either. On the contrary, the disclosure of the information such as the application forms of the candidates which would contain several personal details about them could cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy.” Krishan Gupta v. CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, [2013] CIC 10319, decided on August 05, 2013) 1

Central Information Commission
Mr. Krishan Gupta vs Union Public Service Commission on 5 August, 2013



The Appellant was not present in spite of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­ (i) Dr. Kulbir Singh, JD & CPIO,
(ii) Shri Imran Farid, US
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard the submissions of the Respondent.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought two sets of  information,   namely,   the   copies   of   the   application   forms   of   some   100   odd  candidates who had appeared in the Civil Service (Main) Examination 2011 and  CIC/SM/A/2013/000428 & 436
the   list   of   those   candidates  who   had   been   invited   to   the   interview   but   not  recommended, along with their marks separately for the written and interview.  The CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that it was  personal   information   of   the   candidates   and   exempt   from   disclosure   under  section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority  had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO and disposed of the appeals filed by  the Appellant.

4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI applications and  the reply given by the CPIO in both the cases. We are entirely in agreement  with   both   the   CPIO   and   the   Appellate   Authority.   The   information   sought  is  clearly personal information of third­party candidates who had appeared in the  Civil   Services   Examination.   There   is   no   obvious   public   interest   involved   in  disclosing   this   information   either.   On   the   contrary,   the   disclosure   of   the  information such as the application forms of the candidates which would contain  several personal details about them,could cause unwarranted invasion of their  privacy.

5. We are in agreement with the stand taken by both the CPIO and the  Appellate Authority and reject the appeals.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2013/000428 & 436
Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against  application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this  Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2013/000428 & 436
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment