Service Records of Employees, Promotion and Financial
Benefits are personal information
and can not be
disclosed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act
A single judge bench of the
Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding writ
petition held that the personal information of employees like service records,
copies of promotion & financial benefits can't be disclosed under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
On April 19, 2017, respondent
No. 3 submitted an RTI application. It was sent to the Public Information
Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Education (DoE), Delhi. The application
requested various details about the service records of the staff at Ryan International
School. It also sought information on their employment conditions. The
requested information included whether the school kept and updated service
books for its employees. It also asked for details about the financial benefits
given to employees according to government guidelines. Additionally, it
requested copies of promotion and financial benefit orders, as well as copies
of communications related to promotions and conduct related matters issued by
the school to its employees.
It was argued by the school that the
information being sought was personal information about its employees. It
claimed this information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act. This section protects personal information that does not serve a
public interest and could invade privacy. It was further contended that it is a
private unaided institution. Therefore, it did not fall under the definition of
"public authority" as per the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
As a result, the school was not obligated to disclose the requested information
including employee service records.
Unsatisfied with the school's response,
respondent No. 3 filed a second appeal before the CIC. The CIC issued an order
to the DoE. The order directed the DoE to use its regulatory powers. The CIC
required the DoE to obtain the requested information from the school. The CIC
ruled that the DoE, as a regulatory body, had a duty to oversee the functioning
of all schools. This included private unaided schools. The CIC emphasized the
need to ensure compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR),
1973. The CIC emphasized that Ryan International School might not
be a public authority under the RTI Act. However, the DoE was obligated to
monitor and supervise the school's operations. The CIC held that the
information sought by respondent No. 3 was related to the regulatory oversight
of the DoE. Therefore, this information should be accessible through the DoE.
This access to information is ensured under the Delhi School Education Act and
Rules (DSEAR), 1973.
The CIC further stated that the
DoE has the power and responsibility to ensure that schools comply with the
DSEAR Act. The DoE serves as the supervisory and regulatory authority. The
school's refusal to provide the requested information was based on its claim of
being outside the RTI Act's scope. The CIC found this reasoning inadequate. The
DoE must exercise its powers to collect the necessary information from the
school. This information should then be made available to the applicant under
the RTI Act.
Aggrieved by the CIC's order,
Ryan International School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court,
seeking to quash the order passed by the CIC.
The Petitioner - Ryan
International School, assails the order dated 14th May, 2019, passed by Central
Information Commission (CIC) directing the Petitioner to disclose information
regarding the service details of its employees working in the Petitioner's
school.
The Petitioner's - (Ryan
International School's), contention is that information which
was being directed to be disclosed by the CIC is the personal
information of its employees, which is exempted from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. In this
regard, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and
Others [ (2013) 1SCC 212 )], which reads as follow:-
12. The petitioner herein sought
for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to
the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and
immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and
borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also
sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third
respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his
son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns
of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is
whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal
information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the
CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e.
copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and
orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as
defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an
employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee
and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules
which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other
hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of
that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim
those details as a matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a
person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand
exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act,
unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer
or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied
that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
15. The petitioner in the
instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information,
the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy
of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act".
-
- On the basis of above
judgement Apex Court, The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held
The CIC has directed the
disclosure of information which is entirely personal information of
employees and as such the information stands exempted from disclosure
under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Furthermore,
nothing has been brought on record to show that larger public
interest is involved which requires the disclosure of such
information even though it is exempted. The CIC has directed
the Directorate of Education to call upon schools under
its regulatory capacity to furnish certain information, however, the order did
not consider the fact that the information sought pertained to sensitive
personal information and service records of the employees of the school.
Therefore, Iit was held by the High Court that the order dated 14th May, 2019
passed by the CIC, was unsustainable and accordingly it was set aside by
the court".
No comments:
Post a Comment