Is Information on application form on priscribed format for a post personal document

[satendra]

A Selection Board in Govt. of India which selects scientists, give marks on research work done, paper published, professions awards, medals, recognitions, M.Sc. Ph.D. PDF and projects handled. Marks given on above aspects counts for 50 % only and rest is given by the interview board. Then the selection is on merit. To fetch the information from applicants Board has a set application Form.
I wanted to have information (ii.e. photocopy of application form ) on application form of a selected candidate, the CPIO denied to spare it by saying I quote

"As the information sought is a "third Party Information" under the RTI act 2005 the scientists concern has been requested to give his consent as to whether he would like to share the requisite information with the applicant"

Is information on priscribed format for a job on which marks are awarded by the selection Board a personal Information?

[murgie]

Am neither a lawyer nor an expert on GoI rules. Only an academic. The information you list is what you would expect to see on a scientist's professional CV, which is usually public information at universities (not sure about govt labs). These days simply googling can get one a lot of CVs, so if you know at least something (say, names and affiliations) you may get the information. It will of course not have the same authenticity as the exact information that was provided to the Selection Board.

To examine whether you can build a case under RTI perhaps you should check if (a) there is some other source for the same information, and show that among reasonable possibilities you have found none (b) the selection criteria was meant the pick the best, or just to pick among several who met a threshold (in which case it will be much harder) (c) you can argue that the information you're seeking is what would be contained in a public CV of a scientist, and is not private information (e.g. information about financial records, personal life). Where this last can get tricky is if the form includes both scientist-CV type information, and information about say, family and children. Some of this may be innocuous but its being commingled with purely professional CV info means that some work has to be done to "redact" (blacken or erase) such information.

There may be avenues outside of, or in conjunction with, RTI. In a university environment, I've seen a couple of times when a negative personnel action appears to have been triggered by confidential external recommendation letters. Once such letters were revealed to the grievant, but with names, addresses and affiliations of the letter-writers carefully redacted. In one school, when letters became the issue, a special committee of 2 (one faculty member [from an allowed set] chosen by the faculty member, the other by the university) read the letters and commented on the whether the interpretation of those letters was fair. I don't know whether these suggest other feasible avenues for pursuing an appeal in your setting. Best,

Murgie

[karira]

satendra,

There is a recent decision of the CIC allowing for disclosure (the PA actually withheld information under Section 8(1)(j)....invasion of privacy) of information like educational qualifications, technical qualification, experience certificate of selected candidates.

It might be of help in your case:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_30012008_05.pdf

[meteor]

Originally Posted by karira

satendra,

It might be of help in your case:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_30012008_05.pdf

The above pdf contains CPIO's contention that the information cannot be supplied as it is voluminous.

Can any information can be denied because it is voluminous?

[karira]

Originally Posted by meteor

The above pdf contains CPIO's contention that the information cannot be supplied as it is voluminous.

Can any information can be denied because it is voluminous?

The decision is about allowing disclosure for information that the CPIO said was protected under Section 8(1)(j) as well as definition of privacy. There is no mention of voluminous information.

[meteor]

Originally Posted by karira

The decision is about allowing disclosure for information that the CPIO said was protected under Section 8(1)(j) as well as definition of privacy. There is no mention of voluminous information.

A part of the decision notice is reproduced in red:-

To this he received a reply on 11-10-06 from Shri R.R. Kakde, CPIO as follows:
Point No. Comments
1. The selection was based on performance in the interview
and merit.
2. to 5. The information sought by you is voluminous and would thus
disproportionately divert the resources of the NCPIL. Therefore,
if you are interested in a particular case, it would be our
pleasure to provide you the inspection of such records at our
Rawatbhata Site, provided you intimate us well in advance about
the date and time of your visit.


I was referring to the comment against 2 to 5.

[karira]

One more decision of the APSIC disclosing such type of information (details on forms):

_:: Welcome to SCIC ::_

[karira]

One more decision of the CIC allowing disclosure of this type of information:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_21022008_19.pdf

Every citizen has the right to know whether the candidate fulfils the criteria for the post. Therefore, I direct the CPIO to furnish the copies of M.Sc. and Ph.D degree certificates submitted by Dr. Suman Preet Singh Khanuja at the time of his first appointment in CSIR as Scientist E-II, Lucknow. Likewise he has to provide the date of birth/verification in respect of Dr. Suman Preet Singh Khanuja. The CPIO has also to produce the educational qualifications of the said person at the time of his initial appointment. As far as change of name or addition of surname is concerned, the CPIO has stated very clearly no records are available, hence, it cannot be provided. The information that are available should be provided within 15 days and for which is not available, it should be stated very categorically that records are not available. On the above lines, the appeal is disposed of.

[taurus]

If the information is about one or two selected candidates it may be supplied because after selection as a govt servant such personal data becomes matters of public record. But if someone asks for information pertaining to large number of candidates then the PA may justifiably take the plea of disproportionately diverting the resources and deny it. In this case it appears to be so. That is why the PA has offered to show the files. That is fair enough.

[karira]

In the following case, the appellant tried to get the same data (as requested above) through seeking information in a different way. Information pertained to:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_29022008_64.pdf

1. Copy of original document of marks awarded by the Screening Committee to all the applicants in the format (copy of a format enclosed) [sic] showing following column (Hiding names of the screening committee members):
• Academic qualifications
• Experience
• Service in remote area
• In service awards / recognition
• Teaching / extension
• Special achievements
• Externally funded project(s)
• International experience
• Institute building
• Inter-institutional project(s)
• Publications, etc.
2. Copy of original list (hiding names of screening committee members) showing applicants recommended / not recommended, eligible / not eligible to be called for interview.
Page 2 of 4
3. Copy of original document of marks awarded for final selection at the time of interview to all the candidates attended interview showing (copy of a format enclosed):
• Marks given by the Screening Committee
• Marks given by individual member of Selection Committee
• Marks given by individual members of the Selection Committee [sic]
• Total marks given by the Selection Committee
• Total marks obtained
• Result / Remarks
4. Copy of noting of file showing processing and recommendations of ASRB sent to appointing authority of ICAR.”

CIC has allowed disclosure.

[taurus]

It is interesting to note from the CIC order quoted that the PA is allowed to collect further fee representing 'the cost of collecting and collating the information!' Does the Act provide for such levy?

[jps50]

I think P.A. is not entitled to charges for collecting and collating information.