Attempt To Shield Ineligible Persons: MP High Court Quashes CIC Order Denying RTI Info On Experience Certificate Of Public Office Appointees

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an order of the Central Information Commission which denied information to an applicant under RTI Act pertaining to educational qualification including experience certificate of candidates appointed to public office, holding that the same cannot be termed as private information.

In doing so the court said that the stand taken by the Central Information Commission in denying the information to the petitioner, which was permitted as per Section 11(1) proviso and going against earlier CIC orders, appears to be an attempt for nondisclosure of information and "an attempt to shield unscrupulous and ineligible persons".

Justice Vivek Agarwal in his order said that Section 8(1)(j) exempts information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which, has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

However, the court said, in the present case as held by the CIC itself in three earlier judgments, that disclosure of qualification or appointment to a public office or educational certificates which in the opinion of this Court will also include experience certificates cannot be said to be a private information and that information is always within the public domain. 

The high court referred to CIC's order in another case and said that educational, technical qualification and experience certificate of selected candidates, file noting, etc. cannot be said to be hit by provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) as the information is on a public activity. It observed that the  Information Commissioner failed to take this vital aspect into consideration including the fact that it failed to take into consideration orders of the Central Information Commission and has failed to distinguish them before arriving at any conclusion.

"In the present case, disclosure is in regard to educational, technical qualification and experience certificate, file noting etc. of the candidates in regard to whom information is sought and who had admittedly participated in the selection process and further there is an admission in regard to one of such candidates Dr. Prakeek Maheshwari that his appointment was illegal, then such information will fall within the proviso to Section 11 (1) of RTI Act and its disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party and, therefore, such information can be disclosed as held by CIC in its decisions cited above. Therefore, the stand of CIC in the present case vide impugned order dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) is contrary to the precedents of the Chief Information Commissioner's Office, it appears to be an attempt for nondisclosure of information, appears to be an attempt to shield unscrupulous and ineligible persons, therefore, impugned order dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) is quashed," the court added. 

The petition was filed against an order passed by the Central Information Commission refusing certain information as sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act on the ground that such information is hit by the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) and by Section 11 and that the information related to "third party" therefore it cannot be provided.

In 2020 elections were undertaken by the Indian Institute of Forest Management for giving appointments to the post of Associate Professor and Professor. The petitioner claimed that it has come on record and has been admitted by the authorities that the appointment given to one of the respondents on the post of Associate Professor was illegal for not having the necessary qualification. The requirement was Ph.D. experience of 3 years in case of Associate Professor and 7 years experience in case of Professor.

The petitioner, Dr. Jayshree Dubey claimed that the information sought was in the domain of illegal appointments, expenditure made on such illegally appointed persons and in regard to qualification and experience certificates of persons who were given such an appointment.

The petitioner placed reliance on the order of Central Information Commission in the matter of Pratap Dabar Vs. PIO, Department of Post which held that Public interest will be involved in the point that only eligible candidates should be appointed and a citizen has a right to verify whether the appointed candidate is eligible or not, so even if it is assumed that the information sought is private in nature, it can be disclosed in public interest; thus not being under Section 8(1)(j).

The court discussed that the disclosure in the present case is in regard to educational, technical qualification and experience certificate, file noting etc. of the candidates in respect to whom information is sought and further there is an admission in regard to one of such candidates that his appointment was illegal, so such an information will fall within the proviso to Section 11 (1) of RTI Act which states that when information's disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. Therefore, such information can be disclosed as held by CIC.

Court directed that PIO shall furnish necessary information within fifteen days from the date of order, this information shall be given free of cost to the petitioner. Respondents shall also bear cost of this litigation od Rs. 25000/-

Case Title: Dr.Jayshree Dubey vs. The Central Information Commissioner And Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 39771 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order