212 HARBHAJAN SINGH PUNJAB STATE INFROMATION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. certificate allowed by the Information Commission by the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 2. No.3 filed an application seeking informati information with regard to the qualification details of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7373 Date of Decision : 05 HARBHAJAN SINGH VERSUS PUNJAB STATE INFROMATION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate For respondent No.3. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the information certificate being sought by the respondent No.3 qua th allowed by the Information Commission by the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-7) which is arbitrary and illegal Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent No.3 filed an application seeking informati information with regard to the qualification details of the petitioner. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7373-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05-08-2025 ........Petitioner VERSUS PUNJAB STATE INFROMATION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and Advocate Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the information regarding educational being sought by the respondent No.3 qua the petitioner has been allowed by the Information Commission by the impugned order dated 7) which is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent No.3 filed an application seeking information, which is a 3rd party information with regard to the qualification certificate and service book PUNJAB STATE INFROMATION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI regarding educational e petitioner has been allowed by the Information Commission by the impugned order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent party certificate and service book SAPNA GOYAL 2025.08.08 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7373-2023(O&M) -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said information is not permissible keeping in view the 3rd party information and rather than declining the same, the Information Commission has directed that the photocopies of the Educational Certificate of the petitioner should be handover to the respondent No.3 before the next date of hearing. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that it is to his knowledge that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualification to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer. He submits that the Department has conducted an enquiry wherein approximately 22 officers have been found to be ineligible hence, the grant of information about the qualification of the petitioner has rightly been allowed by the authority concerned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance. 6. The information can only be sought and granted in case, the same is permissible under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In case of the 3rd party information, the same is not permissible to be given under Section 8 of the 2005 Act. 6. The similar question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 decided on 31.08.2017 titled “Canara Bank Vs. C.S Shyam and ors.”, wherein also, the information sought of an employee while working with the Bank was personal in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that such information cannot be granted. Relevant paragraph 14 of the said judgment is as under:- SAPNA GOYAL 2025.08.08 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7373-2023(O&M) -3- “14. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.” 7. Keeping in view the fact that in the present case also, the information of the petitioner is being sought, is a 3rd party information and the said issue is covered by the judgment in C.S. Shyam’s case (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has not been able to rebut the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore. 9. Keeping in view the above the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-7) is set aside. 10. Present petition is allowed in the above terms. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 05-08-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.08.08 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document