(1.) Petitioner a lecturer in Physics in the 5th respondent- college is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dtd. 1/4/2022 passed by the 1st respondent- Commission whereby his RTI application has been negatived quoting the provisions of Sec.8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The party-in-person argues that he is entitled to know the material particulars of service of the persons indicated in the RTI Application inasmuch as that information provides the substratum for structuring his claims in Service Law such as confirmation, seniority, promotion & the like. He argues that Sec.8(1)(j) of 2005 Act having been wrongly construed, there is an error apparent on the face of impugned order.
(2.) The first respondent-Commission has entered appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel; Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are represented by learned AGA; however the 5th Respondent- Principal of the College has remained unrepresented despite service of notice. Learned Panel Counsel and learned AGA oppose the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
(3.) Having heard the petitioner-party-in-person and learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as there is no scope for invocation of Sec.8(1)(j) since petitioner is not a stranger to the Respondent- institution, but a Lecturer working therein since years; it hardly needs to be stated that 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 dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like. The decision cited by the learned Panel Counsel in GIRISH RAMACHANDRA DESHPANDE supra had a different fact matrix and therefore the Apex Court held that personal information cannot be furnished.