CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00679, dt. 19-9-06

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant - Shri R.S. Negi,

Respondent - Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra Dun

Facts:

Shri R.S. Negi of Laxmi Road, Dehradun made 10 applications to the PIO, Wadia
Institute of Himalayan Geology on 8-2-2006, thus seeking the following
information listed at A to J below:
A
“i) Minutes of Search Cum Screening Committee to call the
candidates on 27-4-2000 for the interview of the Director of the
Wadia Institute, Dehradun;
ii) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Selection Committee met on 27-4-2000 at Department of
Science & Technology, New Delhi to select the Director of the
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun.
iii) Copy of the minutes of the recommendation of Governing
Body Meeting on 18/19 May, 2000 for Director’s appointment to the
Govt of India.
iv) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
B
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Screening Committee met on 29-1-2001 for Screening of the
Scientists to be interviewed on 27 to 29 March, 2001 for various
grades to be promoted through Assessment Promotion Scheme.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
C
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Assessment Promotion Committee met on 27 to 29 March,
2001 at Wadia Institute, Dehradun to promote the various
categories of the Scientists.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
D
“I) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Assessment Promotion Committee met on 16-8-2005 at
Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi to promote the
Scientists of E category to F category.

1
 ii) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Governing Body met on 16-8-2005 at Indian National
Science Academy, New Delhi immediately after the above
Assessment Promotion.
iii) The name of the Members of the Government Body
present in this meeting with their addresses.
iv) The name of the Selection Committee Members with their
addresses.
v) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.
E
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Assessment Promotion Committee met on 15-5-2002 at
Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi to promote the
various categories of the Scientists.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
F
“I) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Search Cum Screening Committee to call candidates for
Director’s interview along with Dr. A.C. Nanda during May 2003.
What was the criteria for this?
ii) Minutes of the Selection Committee in which Dr. B.R.
Arora, Geophysicist is selected as a Director of a Geology Institute
during May 2003.
iii) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Governing Body who recommended a Geophysicist- Dr. B.R.
Arora’s name for the Director’s post of the Wadia Institute of
Himalayan Geology, Dehradun. During May 2003 at the cost of
renown Geologists of the country.
iv) The documentary evidences/records of the compulsions
why the candidate called earlier with Dr. N.S. Virdi in April, 2000
were denied a chance, although Dr. Arora is a Geophysicist in a
Geology Institute.
v) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
G
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Governing Body of the Institute held on 8-9 June, 2005 at
Wadia Institute, Dehradun after the Order of the Hon’ble High Court
of Uttaranchal in Writ No.300 (S/B) of 2003.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
H
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Screening Committee met for screening of the Scientists to
be interviewed on 15-5-2002 at Indian National Science Academy,

2
 New Delhi for various grades to be promoted through Assessment
Promotion Scheme.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
I
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Screening Committee met for screening of the Scientists to
be interviewed on 13-14 July 2003 at Wadia Institute, Dehradun for
various grades to be promoted through Assessment Promotion
Scheme.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”
J
“i) Please provide the copy of the minutes/recommendations
of the Assessment Promotion Scheme Committee met on 13-14
July 2003 at Wadia Institute, Dehradun for various grades to
promote the various categories of the Scientists.
ii) I will like to inspect the records to satisfy me and hence
date and time may be fixed accordingly.”

To these he received a single reply on 10-3-06 returning all the

applications together with postal order to him stating that the information
requested pertained to the proceedings of the screening and selection committee
which are of confidential nature in which the identity of a number of third parties
providing assistance, given in confidence, is involved. Hence the information
sought was refused. Aggrieved by this decision appellant moved his first appeal
on 24-3-2006 Before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology in
which he challenged the response of PIO on the grounds that the information
1
sought was not exempted u/s 8 (1) (a). since it cannot compromise the
sovereignty and security of the country. Appellate authority Shri Sanjiv Nair, JS
in the Dept. of Science & Technology has on the other hand in his decision dated
25-4-06 upheld the orders of the PIO arguing as follows:
“The applicant seeks information of committees which were
constituted for selection and for promotion. At no point has the
applicant pointed out that the procedure was not followed in the
selection process. Therefore, by construction, committees which
were required to be constituted met, and now under the RTI the
applicant seeks information.
The question is whether the PIO was within his right to deny the
information on the ground cited above. The committees constituted
1
Emphasis ours

3
 for selection are drawn up from time to time as per the prescribed
procedure and scientists are called upon to provide their views on
the candidates under consideration. To disclose the views of the
experts on the selection committee will adversely effect the
reputation of candidates under consideration. Secondly experts of
committees are expected to give their views in a fair and frank
manner. Disclosure of views of experts about various individuals
would adversely affect their capability to give their opinions and
raise barriers and divisions amongst the scientific community.

On both these grounds the request cannot be granted and is

protected under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.2 The information
contained in the minutes of the selection committee relates to
personal information of individuals and can cause invasion of
privacy.”

Shri R.S. Negi has, therefore, moved a second appeal before us on 26-6-
‘06 but not being in the appropriate form this was returned and the present
appeal dated 6-9-2006 has been moved in which he has sought the following
relief:
“a) Copy of the Search-cum-Screening and Selection Committee
records for the post of Director of the Wadia Institute of Himalayan
Geology during 2000 and 2003 (entire proceedings) as per my
letters of 8-2-2006 to Dr. Dubey.
b) The proceedings of the Screening and Selection Committees for
the various cadres of Scientists since 2000 as per my letters of 8-2-
2006.
c) Strongest action against Dr. A.K. Dubey and Shri Sanjiv Nair for
disobeying the RTI Act of 2005.
d) Strong action against the Appellate Authority and Director of the
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun (Dr. B.R. Arora)
who in collaboration with Dr. A.K. Dubey misled/asked me to
approach Mr. Sanjiv Nair at DST, New Delhi.
e) Direction to Secretary, DST, Govt. of India to take severest
action against Mr. Sanjiv Nair, Dr. A.K. Dubey and Dr. B.R. Arora
for their Acts of commissions and omissions.
f) Any other remedy which CIC feels fit to be given to the applicant,
so that the directions of the CIC will be an eye opener to the
authorities.”

The following have appeared before us on 16-5-2007 in the hearing

through video-conferencing with NIC Dehradun.

2
Emphasis ours

4
 Appellant:
Shri R.S. Negi

Respondents:
Mr. Baldev Raj Arora, Director & Appellate Officer
Representing AA of Dept of S&T Mr. Sanjiv Nair
Dr. A.K. Dubey, Scientist G & PIO, Wadi Instt. Dehradun

Appellant Shri R.S. Negi who had been informed of the time and venue of
the hearing by letter of 30-4-2007 and reminded through telephone call by Asstt.
Registrar on 15-5-07 has opted to join the proceedings 40 minutes after its
commencement.

Dr. A.K. Dubey, now Scientist G and CPIO has strongly contested
appellant’s allegations that the age limit of applicants have been revised to
benefit individuals and there was frustration among scientists working for the
Wadia Institute. He has also clarified that as per Rule 10 of the Institute’s rules
the Director of the Institute is expected to be an earth scientist and not
necessarily a geologist. He further clarified that the appointment of Director is
made on the recommendations of the Committee in the Institute by the
Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). Since advice has been taken from
private parties by the search committee and individuals had provided this
information in confidence, Dr. Dubey has pleaded exemption u/s 8 (1) (i), (g) and
(j). He, however, clarified that if information including marks obtained by any
individual contender for the position is asked for this can be provided as has
been done in the case of Dr. R.S. Rawat, a relation of appellant Shri Negi.

Shri Negi appellant has in his arguments before us reiterated the plea
made in his second appeal.

DECISION NOTICE:

The issue before us is not one of adjudicating upon allegations made

regarding the running and management of the Institute. This is a request for

5
information on which we are required to examine whether the information sought
falls within any of the exemptions cited by the CPIO, Wadia Institute.

On the question of exemption under Section 8 (1) (i) Dr. Dubey has
pleaded that the proceedings of the Search Committee are part of the
deliberations which are submitted to Cabinet and therefore qualify for exemption.
However, the first proviso under this very section is that the decision of the
Council of Ministers the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which
the decisions were taken3 shall be made public after the decision has been
taken. However, the second proviso to the sub section holds that matters which
come under exemptions specified u/s 8 shall not be disclosed. This, therefore,
brings us to the question of Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) u/s 8 (1) g only such
information is exempted the disclosure of which endanger the life or safety of
identified the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement or
security purposes. On the plea u/s 8(1) (g) although it has been argued by Dr.
Dubey that information was given in confidence, it has not been argued nor can it
be considered that such information could have been given ‘for law enforcement
or security purpose.’

This brings us to the question of exemption u/s 8 (1) (j). Sec 8 (1) (j) has
two components – (i) that the disclosure sought has no relation to any public
activity or interest; (ii) unwarranted invasion of privacy. In this case Dr. Dubey
had argued most ably that this is a matter which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest. However, this is a matter that concerns interview for
appointment to a public office of considerable eminence. The stand cannot be
taken that appointment to such an office has no relationship to any public activity
or interest. However, with regard to (ii) above, if there have been a number of
candidates whose names have been considered for this position and discussion
on their merits and demerits has been recorded, disclosure of such information
would assuredly be an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals
concerned. Moreover, the advice given by a third party in this matter is protected
3
Underline ours

6
u/s 11 (1) and it will be open to a third party to claim exemption under this part
under Section 8 (1) (j).

Therefore, it is directed as follows. The proceedings of the Screening and

Selection Committee for the post of Director of Wadia Institute during 2000-2003
and proceedings of the Screening and Selection Committee for various cadres of
scientists since 2000 cannot be held in their entirety to be exempted information
but will be subject to exemption only under the question of disclosure of personal
information under Section 8 (1) (j) as described above and any disclosure will
invite the procedure prescribed u/s 11 (1). Under Section 10 (1) the principle of
severability stands incorporated in the RTI Act 2005. Under this clause “where a
request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to
information which is exempt from disclosures, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which
does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure4 and which can
reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.”

CPIO, Wadia Institute is therefore directed to provide copies of

proceedings sought at a) and b) in Para 6 of Shri Negi’s appeal before us subject
to section 10 (1) of the RTI Act 2005.

On the questions raised in Para 6 c), d) and e) of the second

appeal by appellant Shri R.S. Negi we find that response to the applications
submitted by appellant Shri R.S. Negi has been given on time, given that
February has 28 days. We have indeed found the response mistaken. However,
penalty u/s 20 (1) will only lie on the following grounds:
i) refusal to receive an application
ii) delay in supply of information
iii) malafidely denied the request for information
iv) knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
v) destroyed information which is the subject of the request or obstruct
in any manner in furnishing the information.

4
Underlined by us

7
 In this case the only two conditions that could conceivably be applied are
(iii) and (iv). However, as will be clear from the discussion above it is not
established that there was any malafide in denial of information given the
standing of the Institute in servicing requests for information and that the refusal
stems from a genuine conviction within the public authority that the information
was exempted from disclosure.

The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly. The information sought

which is disclosable as held above, will be provided to appellant Shri R.S. Negi
within 20 working days from the date of issue of this notice.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to

the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16-5-2007

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.

(L.C.Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
16-5-2007