HAR KISHAN  Vs PRESIDENT SECRETARIATT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR.

W.P.(C) 7976/2020 Page 1 of 6
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th January, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 7976/ 2020
HAR KISHAN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Milind P. Singh, Advocate .
(M:9810187151 )
versus
PRESIDENT SECRETAR IATT THROUGH:
ITS SECRETARY & ANR. ….. Respon dents
Through: Mr. A nurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant and Mr.
Nitnem Singh Ghuman, Advocates
for R -1.
Mr. Gaurang Kanth, St anding
Counsel with Ms. Biji Ra jesh and Mr.
Aman Singh Bakshi, Advocates for
CIC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHI BA M. S INGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral )
1. This h earing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challe nging the impu gned order
dated 17th July, 2020 , passed by Centr al Information C ommission
(hereinafter , “CIC”) by which , the second appeal filed by the Petitioner
bearing no. CIC/ PR SEC/A/2018/168355 -BJ, again st the response of the
Presidential Secretariat dated 24th August 2018, to his RTI application, has
been decided in the f ollowing terms :

“DECISION:
Keeping in vie w the facts of the case and the
submissions made by both the parties and in the
light of the judgment dated 23.09.2019 of Hon’ble
High Court in the matter of Shri Har Kishan Vs.
2021:DHC:124
W.P.(C) 7976/2020 Page 2 of 6
President’s Secretariat as also the allegations
levelled by the Appellant regarding illegal
appointments in the Respondent Public Authority,
the Commission directs the FAA to exercise due
diligence in responding to the issues raised by the
Appellant on points 04 and 05 of the RTI
application and furnish information in accordance
with the provisions of the RT I Act, 2005 withi n a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this
order depending upon the condition for
containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the
Country or through email to the Appellant.
The Appeal stands disposed a ccordi ngly.”

3. The b rief backgroun d of this petition is that the Petitioner sought
information on 6th August, 20 18 under the Right to I nformation Act, 2 005
(hereinafter, “RTI Act”), in respect of certain appointments made for Multi-
Tasking Staff at the Presid ential Es tate, Ras htrapati Bhawan. The fo llowing
was the informatio n which was sought by the Petitioner, as pe r the said RTI
application :
“1. Kindly provide copy of Notification Circular
No.A-35011 /7/16-Admn.

2. Kindly provide total no of candidate s who filled
the online application form of MTS (Multi Tasking
Staff) exam ination, N otification Circular No.A-
35011 /7/16-Admn ,and also provide tota l no of
candidates who appeared in this examination.

3. Kindly Provide all the name and address of
Examinat ion Ce nters in all over the India where
respective M TS examination was held.

4. Kind ly Provide the information regarding total
no candidates as per every center separately who
appeared in this examination.

5. Kindly provide complete name and address of
2021:DHC:124
W.P.(C) 7976/2020 Page 3 of 6
examina tion centers of all the candidates who have
been selected for appointment to the p ost of Multi
Tasking Staff, Notification Circular No.A –
35011 /7/16-Admn.

6. Kindly provide complete residential address and
their father’s name of all selected candida tes wh o
have been appointed to the post of Multi Tasking
Staff, Notification Circular No. A-35011/7/16 –
Admn.”

4. The same was respon ded to by the Pres idential Sec retariat , vide letter
dated 24th August 2018 , in which the information qua item nos. 1 to 3 was
provided . The response is set out her einbelow:
“1. Enclosed.
2. Total number of candidates who filled the online
application form was 18416 and total n umber of
candidat es who appeared in this examination was
11257.
3. List enclosed.
4-5. No such infor mation is available.
6. It is a personal information and can’t be
provided u /s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The
disclosure of it has not relationship to a ny public
activit y or interest and it would cause unwarranted
Invasion of the privacy of the individu al.”

5. The Petiti oner challenge d the said response under the RTI Act by way
of an appeal before the First Appellate A uthority, on 5th Septem ber 2018, th e
response to which is not on rec ord. Thereafter, a second appeal was
preferred by the Petitioner before the CIC, which was disposed of by the
CIC vide the impugned decision dated 17th July 2020 , as extracted above .
6. The cont ention of Mr. Milind , ld. counsel appearin g for the Petitioner ,
is that while the CIC has directed the Respondent to pro vide the information
under item nos. 4 & 5 of his application , insofar as the rejection of
2021:DHC:124
W.P.(C) 7976/2020 Page 4 of 6
information under item no. 6 is concerned, no reasons have been given for
rejection of the same by the CIC , in the imp ugned de cision . He submits that
the various judg ments rel ied upon by the CIC in fact support the Petitioner ’s
case, and the said information sought for under item no . 6 ought to have
been provided by the Res pondents.
7. Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. counsel appearin g for the R espondent No.1 ,
submit s that the documen ts pla ced on r ecord clearly show that the
Respondent No. 1 has already comp lied with the order s passed by the CIC –
by providing informat ion in respect of i tem nos . 4 & 5. Insofar as item no . 6
is concerned, the inf orma tion sought is extrem ely wide and, in fact invades
the privacy of the persons who have been appointed as Multi -Tasking Staff,
as name s of the father s of the respective candidate s and residenti al address es
have been sought for by the Petitioner.
8. Heard ld. counsels for the parties and perus ed the record.
9. The Petitione r has heavily relied upon the order dated 23rd September,
2019 pass ed in W.P.(C) 9714/2019 , titled Har Kishan v. Presiden t
Secretariat , filed by the same Petitione r against the Respondent , wherein the
following order has been p assed by this co urt:
“ As recorded in the order dated 16.09.2019
passed by this Court, prayer of the petit ioner has
been confined only to prayer (b ) made in the
petition.
Prayer (b) in the petition reads a s under:

“(b) Directing the Respondent no. 1 No. to
make an inquirv regarding the allegations
made in the complaint dated 18.09.2017, by
the petitioner ”

Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that
2021:DHC:124
W.P.(C) 7976/2020 Page 5 of 6
a Commi ttee has been appointed to look into the
compla int of the petitioner as also other
complainan ts. He submits that as and when the
report of the Committee is received , the same shall
also be forwarded to th e petitioner. He further
submits that e ndeavour will be made to complete
the inves tigation as early as possible.
In view of the submissions mad e, in my
opinion, no further relief can be granted to the
petitioner at this stage.
The petition is disposed of with no order as
to costs.”

10. Investigation , in view of the above or ders, is stated to have been
comple ted in respect of 10 candidates , wh o were found to have obtaine d
jobs on the basis of fake certi ficates , and their appointments h ave been
terminated. The present pet ition is restricted to the challenge to the
impugne d order passed by the CIC in the second appea l, which relates only
to the R TI application of the Petitioner. This Court , in this case , is thus not
going into the said investi gation r eport of the Committee .
11. On a query from the Petitioner, it is r evealed that th e Petiti oner’s
daughter had also applied for an appointment as Multi -Tasking Staff, in the
Presidential Estate, R ashtrapati B hawan. Ho wever, this fact do es not find
any mention in the present writ petit ion. A p erusal of the writ petition a lso
shows that the Petitioner himself w as earli er w orking in the Presi dential
Estate on an ad-hoc basis , from 2012 -2017.
12. This Court is o f the opinion that when ever information is sought
under the RTI A ct, disclosure of an in terest in the in formation sought would
be ne cessary to esta blish the bona fides of the applicant. Non -disclosure of
the same could result in injustice to se veral other affected persons, whose
2021:DHC:124
W.P.(C) 7976/2020 Page 6 of 6
information is sought. The present writ petition is cleverly qui et abou t the
fact that the Petitioner ’s daughter had applied for being c onsidered for
appointm ent for the post of Multi -Task ing Staff at the Rashtrapati Bha wan.
The seeking of th e above information, es pecially after the Petitioner ’s
daughter did n ot obtain employment, cle arly points to some ulterior motives .
13. Even otherwise , on m erits, the information sought in re spect of the
name s of the father s and residential addr esses of the candidate s is
complete ly invasiv e, and would be a roving and fishing enquir y. The said
information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8( 1)(j) of the
RTI Ac t which provides that any such information shall not be provided
which constit utes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of
individuals.
14. Considering the fact that the information in respect of item nos.1 to 5
of the RTI Appl ication has already been provided to the Petitioner , this
Court d oes not find any merit in the present writ petition , which challenges
the rejection of information sought u nder item no.6 .
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts
including that his daughter had applied for appointm ent to the post of Multi –
Tasking Staff, the petition is dism issed with costs of Rs.25 ,000/ – to be paid
to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society ”. The
said costs shall be paid within two weeks.
16. The petit ion is dismissed in the above terms. List for reporting
compliance of payment of costs on 22nd March, 2021.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 1 2, 2021 /dk/Ak
2021:DHC:124