CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu(MadabhushiSridhar)
InformationCommissioner

CIC/SA/A/2015/000038

YashpalArorav.PIO,TransportDepartment
ImportantDatesandtimetaken:

RTI:22.08.2014

Reply:08.09.2014

Time:17days

FAA:16.09.2014

FAO:22.10.2014

Time:36days

SA:18.12.2014

Hearing:18.05.2015

Decision:26.05.2015

Result:Disposedofwithdirection.

PartiesPresent:
1.

Appellantispresent.PublicauthorityisrepresentedbyShriSanjayDewan,PCO.

FACTS:
2.

Appellant through his RTI application sought information regarding his complaint

concerning fraud in issuing of caste certificate. PIO replied on 08.09.2014 stating that
informationsoughtisthirdparty.Beingunsatisfied,appellantfiledfirstappeal.FAAbyhis
orderdated22.10.2014directedthePIOtoprovidethenameoffinancer,numberanddateof
castecertificateaswellascomputerrecordsthatshowedhowmanypermitshadbeenallotted

onthebasisofcastecertificatetotheappellantwithin15days.Beingunsatisfiedwiththe
informationprovidedbyPIO,appellantapproachedtheCommission.

ProceedingsBeforetheCommission:
3.

Respondent officer submitted that information has been provided in a CD except

addressoftheindividuals.Theappellantquestionedwhetheraddressinthecastecertificateis
thirdpartyinformationornot.Theofficerobjectedtodisclosureandsharingoftheaddressin
castecertificateandsaidthatitwouldbetheirpersonalinformation.Theappellantcontended
thathesuspectsthatsomepersonsmighthavefakecertificate,andtoverifythesame,he
needssuchinformation.
Inrelationtodisclosureofcastecertificate,theCommissionhasbeenoftheviewthat
whenapersonhasbeengivenajobforwhichthebasisofselectionhasbeenfulfillingthe
criteriaofcastereservation,itisonlypertinentthatitisalreadymadepublic.TheCommission
inCIC/SG/A/2008/00248/1596observedasfollows:
Whiledecidingthiscase,theCommissionagreeswiththecontentionoftheappellantthat
when a person is holding a public office, getting salary from the public exchequer and
discharging public functions in a public institution, therefore whatever documents she has
submittedinpursuanceofherappointmenttopublicofficeinapublicinstitutionfallsinpublic
domain.Theactofapplyingforajoboraselectionprocessisnotaprivateactivitybutis
clearlyaPublicactivity,anddisclosureofthedocumentsandpaperssubmittedtoobtainthe
jobcannotbeheldtobeaninvasiononprivacy.ThishasalsobeenheldbytheCommission
earlierindecisionCIC/WB/A/2007/00178,andtheCommissionagreeswiththesame.The
Commissionrespectfullydisagreeswiththedecisionsreliedonbythethirdparty.TheAppeal
isallowed.ThePIOwillprovidethecopiesofeducationalqualificationandcastecertificatesto
theappellantbefore28February2009.

In another second appeal CIC/OP/A/2009/000173AD, the commission had further

reiteratedthisview:

The Commission after hearing the submissions made by both sides holds that when an
employee has been appointed in reserved category on the basis of caste certificates
produced by him, the certificates can no longer be termed as personal or third party
informationandmeritdisclosureandaccordinglydirectsthePIOtoprovidetheinformationas
soughtbytheAppellantsintheirRTIapplication.TheinformationtoreachtheAppellantby
31.1.2010andtheAppellantsaredirectedtosubmitacompliancereportby7.2.2010.

Havingheardthesubmissionandafterperusaloftherecord,theCommissionagrees
withtheobservationasstatedabove,thatthecastecertificateofapublicservantwhichforms
thebasisofhisselectionshouldbedisclosed.However,astheappellantinthepresentcaseis
allegingfraudinthemakingofthecastecertificateandisseekingactionbythedepartment
concerning the same. The Commission, therefore, requires the PIO to enquire the
genuineness of caste certificate presented by person mentioned in the RTI application /
complaintandsubmitthereportwithintwomonthsfromthedateofreceiptofthisorder.

Sd/-

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy

(BabuLal)
DeputyRegistrar
Addressesoftheparties:
1.

TheCPIOunderRTI,
AutoRickshawUnit,TransportDepartment,
Burari,Delhi110084.

2.

ShriYashpalArora,
B177/A,GaliNo.08,Bhajanpura,
Delhi110053.