The CIC has consistently held that the ACRs of an officer is in the nature of personal information and can be disclosed only to him and to none else. However, in the present case, the Appellant has not sought the copies of the ACRs. She has only wanted to know the manner in which the DPC evaluated and assessed the individual ACRs of the officers and arrived at the grading in each case. The disclosure of the final relative grading will not help; without the entire chart showing the complete assessment of every officer, it will not be clear how the officers have been assessed in a related matrix. It is without doubt that the relative grading of the ACRs is an important input in the final
decision of the DPC in recommending some officers and not recommending some others. As held by us in several similar cases in the past, in any examination or evaluation process, certain details about the successful or recommended candidates must be disclosed in order to ensure transparency in the selection process. Since the relative grading of the ACRs is the basis for recommending a certain officer for promotion, this needs to be disclosed just as the caste certificate of a public servant needs to be disclosed since that serves as the basis for his appointment to the government service. Therefore, this no longer remains personal information and should be disclosed as it forms the very basis for the promotion of an individual officer.
Central Information Commission
Dr.Madhu Khare vs Union Public Service Commission on 5 October, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present: (i) Smt. Rashmi Sinha, Deputy Secretary
(ii) Shri Shilendra Singh, JS (AIS)
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Indore studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In her RTI application, the Appellant had sought the copies of the CIC/SM/A/2012/000033
grading chart of select list of 2001 and 2002 for promotion from the MP State Administrative Service to the IAS. The CPIO had provided the copies of the minutes of the respective meetings containing, among various other details, a summary of relative assessment of the grading of the officers who had been considered. The Appellate Authority has found the response of the CPIO in order.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that she was not satisfied with the summary of the grading provided by the CPIO as a part of the minutes; she wanted the entire chart showing the grading of the Annual Confidential Rolls (ACRs) of all the officers as considered by the DPC. The Respondents argued that the chart contained the gradings based on the ACRs and, to that extent, the disclosure of this information would amount to the disclosure of personal information of other officers. They, therefore, argued that this could not be disclosed as exempted under the provisions of subsection 1(j) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties. The CIC has consistently held that the ACRs of an officer is in the nature of personal information and can be disclosed only to him and to none else. However, in the present case, the Appellant has not sought the copies of the ACRs. She has only wanted to know the manner in which the DPC evaluated and assessed the individual ACRs of the officers and arrived at the grading in each case. The disclosure of the final relative grading will not help; without the entire chart showing the complete assessment of every officer, it will not be clear how the officers have been assessed in a related matrix. It is without doubt that the relative grading of the ACRs is an important input in the final CIC/SM/A/2012/000033
decision of the DPC in recommending some officers and not recommending some others. As held by us in several similar cases in the past, in any examination or evaluation process, certain details about the successful or recommended candidates must be disclosed in order to ensure transparency in the selection process. Since the relative grading of the ACRs is the basis for recommending a certain officer for promotion, this needs to be disclosed just as the caste certificate of a public servant needs to be disclosed since that serves as the basis for his appointment to the government service. Therefore, this no longer remains personal information and should be disclosed as it forms the very basis for the promotion of an individual officer.
6. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the desired information, namely, the complete chart of the grading of the ACRs of the officers as assessed and evaluated by the DPC and recommended for promotion must be disclosed. We direct the CPIO to do so within 10 working days of receiving this order.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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.
CIC/SM/A/2012/000033
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2012/000033
No comments:
Post a Comment