RTI Corner

The Appellant sought information regarding marks obtained by her in a computer based exam for Graduate Level Selection post including the copy of her answer sheet along with response sheet. The PIO submitted that the answer key and response sheet are uploaded on website immediately after conduct of examination and are accessible to the candidates. She further submitted that upon receipt of notice of hearing, she got in touch with the concerned Service Provider who was responsible for conducting the averred examination for procuring the relevant documents. She further more submitted that the said Service Provider is located in Chennai in a COVID-19 containment zone. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a copy of Answer Key and Response sheet as sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, when CPIO resumes routine office after the Covid-19 lockdown is lifted.
Comments
The Covid – 19 epidemic affected many areas of life, including dissemination of information under the RTI Act. Many departments responded to the pandemic by using digital means. This order relates to May 2020 when many restrictions were in place.
Citation: Supriya Nipane v. Staff Selection Commission I File No: CIC/SSCOM/A/2018/627309, Date of Decision: 13/05/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought to know how many students were admitted under HRM quota for a particular academic year in Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs). The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO as it was stated that the RTI is not a platform for questions and answers and if such is the case, then how will ordinary citizens know if admissions in KVS are done as per guidelines and no frauds have occurred. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the total number the students who were admitted under HRM quota for the academic year to the appellant. Further, the PIO was directed to provide the hyperlink of the website where the sought for information is available.
Comments
When some information which is already available on the website is sought by an appellant, the PIO should provide the specific web link of the same instead of saying that the information is available on the website.
Citation: S Malarvizhi v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in File no.: - CIC/KVSAN/A/2019/601602, Date of Decision: 08/10/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the name, State, community, marks obtained by the candidates who were selected for the admission during 2018 in Hindi Teachers Training Programme – ‘Parangat’. Initially, the PIO and the FAA denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, with the change in the PIO, the new PIO provided certain information containing the list of candidates, with category and the name of the State from which they belong. The PIO further submitted that the marks obtained cannot be given but the candidate can visit the office and inspect the records relating to marks. The CIC observed that personal information of third parties is not disclosable. The CIC also observed that different stands cannot be taken by different officers of the same organization.
Comments
The case shows the ignorance of the PIO and the lack of ability to deal with the applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Through this column, an attempt is made to provide fresh information about RTI cases on a weekly basis.
Citation: Dhirendra Kumar Panda v. Central Institute of Hindi in File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/103985, Date of Decision : 06/10/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information in the context of a complaint letter dated 27.12.2017 received against him which was denied under Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act claiming that these documents bear mention of names of other employees and disclosure of the same may endanger their physical safety as Appellant has threatened some of these employees in the past. The CIC observed that the documents sought pertain to Appellant’s termination from service and he has every right to seek copy of these documents. Adverting to the apprehension of the PIO that disclosure of the same may pose harm to the physical safety of some employees, the Commission sparingly concedes with the applicability of Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to provide copy of specific and available documents sought after severing the names and identifying particulars of other employees/individuals whose reference figure therein. The severance of records will be carried out in consonance with the provision of Section 10 of RTI Act.
Comments
There have been cases where employees have been terminated or removed from service under 56 (J). This case laws provides some window for such employees to seek information.
Citation: Anupam Singh v. Ordnance Factory in File No: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/154675, Date of Decision: 16/07/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com