Company : Sol Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Website : www.courtkutchehry.com
Printed For :
Date : 20/06/2025

(2008) 11 AHC CK 0176

Surendra Singh APPELLANT

Date of Decision : 14-11-2008

Judgement
V.M. Sahai and Sanjay Misra, JJ.
This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.8.2008 passed
by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 41740 of 2008 Committee of
Management v. State of U.P. and Ors. By the order dated 18.8.2008 the learned
Single Judge has required the State respondents to file counter affidavit and has
issued notice to the respondent No. 6 and 7 and further till the next date of listing it
has been provided that no action shall be taken against the petitioner under the
Right to Information Act 2005.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent in this Special Appeal has been
duly served with notice of this appeal on 25.9.2008.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order on the ground that the
controversy as to whether the Committee of Management of an Educational
Institution or its members can be required to give information on an application
made under the Right to Information Act 2005 has been considered by a Division
Bench of this court in the case of Committee of Management Ismail Girls National
Inter College, Meerut v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008(8) ADJ 345. According to him
the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur by the letter dated 4.8.2008 had
forwarded the query made by the appellant from the Committee of Management of
the institution known as Shanti Niketan Inter College, Barahi, District Ghazipur for
replying and furnishing information point wise to the appellant.
3. The Committee of Management preferred the writ petition against the said letter
of the District Inspector of Schools wherein the impugned order was passed. The
appellant submits that the Committee of Management of the institution is covered
under the definition of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and is a public
authority since the scheme of administration of the institution has been framed u/s
16-A of the Intermediate Education Act and the management and functions are
clearly regulated by the provisions of Intermediate Education Act 1921 and
Regulations framed thereunder.
4. The institution is engaged in providing education to the society and is receiving
grant in aid from the State for payment of salary to the entire teaching staff, non
teaching staff and other employees. It has been stated that information sought by
the appellant is not exempted u/s 8(j) of the Act inasmuch as the institution is
engaged in public activity and it cannot be said that it would be an invasion of
privacy of any individual of the Committee of Management or other. According to
him the information sought by the appellant was relating to the
appointment/educational certificates of six Assistant teachers named therein and
employed in the institution which cannot be brought within the exemption of
Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act.
5. We have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant and find
that in so far as the Committee of Management of the private managed institutions
are concerned they are covered under the definition of Section 2(h) of the Right to
Information Act being public authority as has been held by a Division Bench of this
court in the case of Committee of Management Ismail Girls National Inter College,
Meerut v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra). The appellant is right in saying that the
information sought by him from the Committee of Management was bound to be
given as per provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 and the District Inspector
of Schools had rightly required the Committee of Management of the Shanti
Niketan Inter College, to provide such information to the petitioner.
6. In so far as the exemption from disclosure of information as provided in Section
8 of the Act is concerned the provisions of Section 8(j) exempts 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. The provisions of Sub-clause (J) of Section 8 of the Act also
provides that the Information Officer or appellant authority as the case may be can
record his satisfaction for disclosure of such information in the larger public
interest.
7. The provisions therefore has been enacted by the legislature for non disclosure
of information only when there is no relationship to any public activity or interest
or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
However, it has further been provided in the Sub-section that such information can
be disclosed if the Officer is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such information.
8. Section 11 of the Act relates to Third party Information. Third party has been
defined u/s 2(n) to mean a person other than the citizen making a request for
information and includes a public authority. It is only when the third party treats
the information required to be disclosed as confidential that the authority is
required to give a written notice to such third party of the request. In case such
information is not held as confidential no written notice is required to be given.
Such provisions in Section 11 appear to be for the purpose of preventing the Act
from becoming a tool in the hands of a busy body only for the purpose of settling
personal scores or other oblique motives.
9. The information sought by the appellant in the present case relates to six
Assistant teachers of the institution in question and the educational certificates
submitted by them for being appointed as Assistant teachers. Since the institution
in question and the Committee of Management managing the institution is a public
authority as defined in the Act the Assistant teachers working therein are also
performing the duties of imparting education to the society. Consequently when
the Assistant teachers are performing public activity the information sought by the
applicant is with relation to such activity and it cannot be said that the teaching
work done by the six Assistant teachers has no relationship to any public activity or
interest.
10. The information sought by the appellant cannot also be said to cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such Assistant teachers in the institution
inasmuch as their educational certificates are matter of record of the institution on
the strength of which they have obtained appointments as Assistant teachers and
are performing public activities by imparting education in the institution. By no
stretch of imagination can it be held that the information regarding their
appointment and educational certificates would be an unwarranted invasion of their
privacy.
11. Their educational qualifications are not privy to them but are records available
with the institution which is a public authority within the meaning of the Act.
The information sought in the present case cannot also be brought wtthin the
meaning of being confidential to the third party. The records of educational
certificates of the six Assistant Teachers are available with the public authority and
have relationship to their performing their duties as such. They were appointed by
virtue of their qualifications and hence such qualifications have direct relationship
to their duties. As such the exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8(j) is not
available in the present case.
12. Consequently the District Inspector of Schools has rightly required the
Committee of Management of the institution to divulge the information regarding
appointment and educational certificates of the six Assistant teachers named
therein who are working in the Shanti Niketan Inter College, Barahi, District
Ghazipur which is a duly recognized institution by the Board of High School and
Intermediate and it receives grant in aid from the State. The provisions of the
Payment of Salaries Act 1971 are also applicable on the institution which is a clear
stand taken by the Committee of Management in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.
Consequently, even the exemption u/s 8(j) of the Right to Information Act cannot
come to the help of the Committee of Management/institution.
13. For the aforesaid reasons we find that the interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge preventing such information to be elicited from the Committee of
Management of Shanti Niketan Inter College, Barahi, District Ghazipur requires to
be set aside and since the writ petition had been filed for quashing the order dated
4.8.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools requiring the information to be
given under the Right to Information Act 2005 the writ petition itself stands decided
by this order. Since we have held that the information is to be divulged/given and
the third parties or the institution or its Committee of Management cannot claim
any exemption from disclosure of information sought in the present case under the
Act, the writ petition itself having no merit shall stand dismissed.
14. In the result the Special Appeal succeeds, the interim order dated 18.8.2008 is
set aside and the writ petition itself stands dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.