Under Section 8(1) (j)[1] of the RTI Act, 2005 (‘RTI ACT’), the Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) can deny disclosure of ‘personal information’ of the employees of a public authority. The term of ‘personal information’, however, is not defined in the RTI Act, so, when the RTI applicants seek information related to service particulars of an employee of a public authority viz transfer, postings details etc., which though pertain to an individual but are outcomes of administrative decisions, CPIOs face a dilemma as to whether this kind of information would fall under the category of personal information or not?
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case[2]:
This dilemma of the CPIOs got dissolved in the year 2012, when Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case held that “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.”
Resultantly, details related to transfer, postings, promotion etc., being connected to the performance of an employee in the organization, CPIOs started treating such details as ‘personal information’.
CS Shyam case[3]:
This position got further cemented in the year 2017, when the RTI application of Mr. CS Shyam, submitted to Canara Bank and seeking information regarding (i) posting/transfer of clerical staff of the Canara Bank to other branches for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.7.2006 (ii) officials promoted and posted to other branches in Ernakulam district (iii) clerical staff transferred in Ernakulam district on temporary basis during the period 1.1.02 to 31.7.06 (iv) details of appointment/promotion of clerical staff other than mentioned in (i) and (ii) above during 1.1.02 to 31.7.06 in district Ernakulam (v) copies of transfer guidelines pertaining to clerical staff during 1.1.02 to 31.7.06 was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that:
- The information sought by the applicant of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature.
- It was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act.
- Neither the applicant nor the Central Information Commission and the High Court disclosed any larger public interest in supplying such information.
Present situation:
As a result of the aforesaid Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions, CPIOs have until now been denying disclosure of the service particulars/ information connected to the performance of an employee/officer of their public authorities on the ground that it is ‘personal information’.
AS Mallikarjunaswamy case:
Recently, however, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mr. AS Mallikarjunaswamy[4] (‘RTI Applicant’), allowed disclosure of service particulars of lecturers of Marimallapas P.U. College (“College”).
The RTI Applicant who was employed as a lecturer in the college, had sought the following information from the College:
For the period of 2001 to 2021:
- How many full time, part time and temporary or guest lecturer are appointed, details of these lecturers such as their name, designation and date of issuance of order.
- Copy of the document wherein the lecturers were relieved, their details and signed documents of relieving order
The CPIO of the college had denied the information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. On appeal, State Information Commission of Karnataka had upheld the CPIO’s decision.
The RTI Applicant, then appealed to Karnataka High Court. Before the Karnataka High Court, the Applicant contended that the information sought by him provides the substratum for structuring his claims in Service Law such as confirmation, seniority, promotion and the like.
Karnataka High Court allowed the disclosure of the service particulars on the following grounds:
- There is no scope of invocation of Section 8(1) (j), since the RTI applicant is no stranger to the public authority, but a lecturer working in the institute since years.
- In the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the factual matrix was different, hence, SC held that personal information cannot be furnished.
- For working out redressal for the grievances in service, an employee has to have full service particulars of other employees working under the same employer especially when the dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like.
- The RTI applicant is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order.
The Karnataka High Court has held that, since, the RTI applicant was the employee of the public authority and not a stranger, section 8(1) (j) would not apply. Also, service particulars of other employees cannot be denied, if, they are essential for the redressal of a service grievance of the employee seeking it, especially when the dispute is related to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like or the employee wishes to avail a benefit.
The Karnataka High Court judgment is significant, as, it has distinguished the earlier decisions of Girish Deshpande and CS Shyam and found it to be inapplicable in cases where the service particulars of employees are sought by a fellow employee for the purpose of redressal of his/her service grievance/dispute or to avail some service benefit. Thus, in such a case, information relating to postings, transfers will also have to be provided.
[1] Section 8(1) (j) (j): “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
[2]Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner. & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012] dated 3.10.2012
[3]Canara Bank Vs. CS Shyam and Another, Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017
[4] AS Mallikaarjunaswamy Vs. State Information Commissioner and Others, WP No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023