Central Information Commission File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001830 1838 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Dated: 9 August 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Tapan Kumar Pradhan Assistant General Manager (BAPM), Reserve Bank of India, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Administration & Personnel Management, Central Office, Amar Building, P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Unnikrishnan, (ii) Shri Mathew
2. The Appellant has filed nine appeals in all. We have clubbed all these cases together for hearing. The hearing was taken up through videoconferencing. While the Appellant was present in our chamber, the Respondents were present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions on each of these cases. The Appellant specifically pressed for the following information which the CPIO had not disclosed to him earlier:
i) the PAR scores/marks for the period 19992000 to 200708 of all the faculty members of the ZTC where he himself had been working; CIC/SM/A/2009/001830 1838
ii) the list of all the candidates who took part in the online quiz competition organised in January 2008 along with the marks obtained by each of them;
iii) the PAR marks obtained by each of the candidates who appeared in the interview conducted in April 2009 for promotion of officers from grade C to grade D.
3. In regard to the above three items of information, the Respondents argued that the PAR marks of individual officers constituted integral part of their PAR and disclosure of such marks would reveal the PAR which is personal information and could cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. They cited some of the the rulings of the CIC in their favour. It is true that the CIC has held on a number of occasions that the annual confidential roles or the PAR of individual employees should not be disclosed to unconnected persons but only to the concerned individual employee. We tend to agree with this line of argument. The Appellant can surely ask for his own PAR details; but to provide him with such details of other officers and employees would not be in order it being exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. However, the list of candidates who participated in the online quiz competition or the marks awarded to them do not fall in the same category. Such information should invariably be disclosed. Therefore, if this information is still available with the agency conducting the quiz, the CPIO is directed to obtain the same and provide to the Appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.
5. We noted that apart from the above, the CPIO has already provided the CIC/SM/A/2009/001830 1838 remaining information as available.
6. With the above direction, all these nine cases stand disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner 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) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/001830 1838