another decision :
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000739
Date of Hearing : March 21, 2012
Date of Decision : March 21, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Ram Chander
A73,
Shyam Vihar
Phase I, Goyla Mod
Najafgarh
New Delhi 110 043
The Appellant was not present.
Respondents
Directorate of education
Government of NCT of Delhi
New Delhi
Represented by: Ms. Anita Satia, DDE (South)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000739
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication
(dated 05.10.2011) with the PIO, Directorate of Education, Defence
Colony, New Delhi seeking certain information about vacancies available for admission in Sanwal Das
Memorial School, KMP, New Delhi 03 against Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota. He, in addition,
also asked for photocopy of service book of Ms. Anita Satia, DDE (South). Since the Applicant did not
receive any reply from the PIO within the stipulated time frame, he proceeded to file his first appeal with
the Appellate Authority on 14.11.2011. The Appellate Authority through his order dated 21.11.2011
directed the PIO to supply the information to the Applicant within 10 days. He also suggested that in case
the PIO has already supplied the information to the Appellant, she should provide proof of the same to the
Appellant. The PIO accordingly on 24.11.2011 informed the Appellant that the information has already
been supplied to him by a letter dated 18.11.2011. She also furnished proof (i.e. speed post receipt) of
having sent the said letter dated 18.11.2011 to the Appellant. The Appellant thereafter filed the present
petition (dated 27.12.2011) before the Commission complaining that information in respect of item no. 7
(viz., service book of Anita Satia, DDE) of his RTIapplication
has been denied to him.
Decision
2. Heard submissions.
3. It is noted that the Commission’s position in its past cases with regard to the disclosure of ‘service book’ of
a government servant (the subject matter of the present petition) has been that the service details of a
government employees are not completely exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the RTIAct.
Only those information (like details of nominees; deductions from monthly pay bills, insurance details
etc.), disclosure of which might cause invasion of privacy of a third party has been decided to be withheld
from disclosure, while other category of information ie service details (like, date of appointment, place of
posting, details of increment in salary etc.) which are already in circulation or are available in the public
domain , and are very much a part of a ‘service book’ of a government servant, have been allowed to be
made available to the information seeker.
4. In view of the above, it is directed that the PIO shall furnish the present information (i.e. copy of service
book of Ms. Anita Satia, DDE, South) to the Appellant after excising from it, under Section 10(1) of the
RTIAct,
all the details which are personal to the third party. The information is to be furnished to the
Appellant by 30.04.2012.
5. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ram Chander
A73,
Shyam Vihar
Phase I, Goyla Mod
Najafgarh
New Delhi 110 043
2. Appellate Authority
Directorate of Education
Government of NCT of Delhi
Office of the Regional Director (South)
C4,
Vasant Vihar
New Delhi
3. Public Information Officer
Directorate of Education
Government of NCT of Delhi
Office of the Dy. Director of Education
Distt. South
Defence Colony
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge,
NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct,
giving (1) copy of
RTIapplication,
(2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the
Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the
complaint. In the prayer, the Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.
