Personal Information Of Employees Like Service Records, Copies Of Promotion & Financial Benefits Can't Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
15 Oct 2024 2:30 PM
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding writ petition held that the personal information of employees like service records, copies of promotion & financial benefits can't be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Background Facts
On April 19, 2017, respondent No. 3 submitted an RTI application. It was sent to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Education (DoE), Delhi. The application requested various details about the service records of the staff at Ryan International School. It also sought information on their employment conditions.
The requested information included whether the school kept and updated service books for its employees. It also asked for details about the financial benefits given to employees according to government guidelines. Additionally, it requested copies of promotion and financial benefit orders, as well as copies of communications related to promotions and conduct related matters issued by the school to its employees.
On May 27, 2017, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the DoE informed respondent No. 3 about the RTI application. The application was forwarded to Ryan International School for their response. However, no specific information was provided at that time. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 3 decided to file a appeal under the RTI Act.
On July 25, 2017, the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to revise the reply. The authority instructed the PIO to provide the requested information to respondent No. 3. The PIO then forwarded the school's response to respondent No. 3. The Ryan International School denied the request for information. They claimed it was a private unaided institution. The school stated that it did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act. They argued that it was not a "public authority" as defined by the RTI Act. Therefore, the school was not obligated to provide such information.
Unsatisfied with the school's response, respondent No. 3 filed a second appeal before the CIC. The CIC issued an order to the DoE. The order directed the DoE to use its regulatory powers. The CIC required the DoE to obtain the requested information from the school. The CIC ruled that the DoE, as a regulatory body, had a duty to oversee the functioning of all schools. This included private unaided schools. The CIC emphasized the need to ensure compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973.
The CIC emphasized that Ryan International School might not be a public authority under the RTI Act. However, the DoE was obligated to monitor and supervise the school's operations. The CIC held that the information sought by respondent No. 3 was related to the regulatory oversight of the DoE. Therefore, this information should be accessible through the DoE. This access to information is ensured under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973.
The CIC further stated that the DoE has the power and responsibility to ensure that schools comply with the DSEAR Act. The DoE serves as the supervisory and regulatory authority. The school's refusal to provide the requested information was based on its claim of being outside the RTI Act's scope. The CIC found this reasoning inadequate. The DoE must exercise its powers to collect the necessary information from the school. This information should then be made available to the applicant under the RTI Act.
Aggrieved by the CIC's order, Ryan International School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the order passed by the CIC.
It was argued by the school that the information being sought was personal information about its employees. It claimed this information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section protects personal information that does not serve a public interest and could invade privacy. It was further contended that it is a private unaided institution. Therefore, it did not fall under the definition of "public authority" as per the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. As a result, the school was not obligated to disclose the requested information including employee service records.
On the other hand, it was contended by the CIC that most of the information sought by respondent No. 3 should be accessible under the DSEAR (Delhi School Education and Rules) Act. This Act specifically applied to “unaided schools”. These schools are accountable to the Directorate of Education and must comply with its mandates. The Act includes provisions such as Sections 50, 55, and 56, which establish criteria for granting, suspending, or withdrawing school recognition.
The CIC further contended that the Directorate of Education has the authority to monitor and regulate schools under the DSEAR Act. This authority requires schools to submit necessary documents as mandated. These documents contain information that is accessible to the public under the RTI Act, 2005.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the CIC has directed the disclosure of information which was entirely personal information of the employees and this information was exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Furthermore it was observed by the court that nothing has been brought on record to show that the larger public interest was involved which required the disclosure of such information even though it was exempted.
It was noted by the court that the CIC had directed the Directorate of Education to call upon schools under its regulatory capacity to furnish certain information, however, the order did not consider the fact that the information sought pertained to sensitive personal information and service records of the employees of the school.
It was held by the court that the order dated 14th May, 2019 passed by the CIC, was unsustainable. Therefore it was set aside by the court.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.
Case No. : W.P.(C) 8984/2019
Counsel for the Petitioner: Romy Chacko, Senior Advocate with Ashwin Romy, Sachin Singh Dalal, Akshat Singh and Joe Sebastian, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: R.K. Malik, APO (DoE)
.png)
.jpeg)
