CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00103 dated 3-2-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Decision Announced 23.7.'09
Appellant: Shri Mahender Kr. Singh
Respondent: Dep't of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
FACTS
By an application of 18-6-2007 Shri Mahender Kr. Singh of Nanhey
Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, DOPT seeking the
following information:
“1. My brother Manoj Kumar Singh is a employee of Border
Road Organization (BRO) which comes under Ministry of
Surface Transport and is governed by Border Road
Development Board (BRDB). He is a permanent
employee of the organization with effect from 1996 and
working as LDC from his initial recruitment. He passed a
departmental examination 4-5 years back and based
upon that he is sponsored by the department for Diploma
in Civil Engineering at College of Military Engineering.
After completion of the program he became eligible for
the suitable engineering post in the Department and is
awaiting departmental promotion. Meanwhile other
candidates who is senior to my brother in the LDC cadre
passed the same examination a year later than my
brother based on the same scheme (Has got the diploma
degree a year later than my brother but is promoted
before my brother while my brother is still awaiting
promotion).
a. So my question is whether as per central
government rules the department is right in
promoting the other candidates to the engineering
post for which the minimum requirement is
Diploma in Civil Engineering is attained by my
brother a year earlier (2004) than the other
candidates (2005 or above).
b. So whether seniority in such a case is counted on
the basis of total length in service or total length in
service after attaining the minimum requirement for
the said post.
2. Further the Border Road Organization (BRO) comes
under the preview of Border Road Development Board1
(BRDB), where the latter is exempted from the purview of
RTI as per Schedule 2.
a. So whether this immunity provided to BRDB also
applies to BRO in service/ welfare/ corruption
matters.”
To this Shri Mahender Kr. Singh received a response dated 9.8.2007
from Shri P. K. Mishra, Under Secretary informing him as follows:-
“1 (a&b) The queries do not form part of information under the
Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Since the BRO is part of BRDB is exempted from the
purview of RTI Act, 2005 BRO is ,therefore, also
exempted from the purview of the Act.”
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Mahender Kr. Singh
moved an appeal before Shri K. G. Verma, Director, DOPT on 20-8-2008 with
the following plea:-
“I have been told by the CPIO, DOPT that the queries do not
form part of information under the RTI Act, 2005, in the
response I have done a through revision of the RTI Act under
head “What is not open to disclosure” (copy attached) on the
RTI website and could not find any reason why the information
has been denied to me.”
Upon this he received an order from Ms. Anuradha S. Chagti, Deputy
Secretary, RTI dated 14.9.2007 as follows:-
“The information sought by him is in the form of a query and
relates to the correctness of the action taken by Border Road
Organisation in the matter of promotion of his brother working in
that Organisation. The matter on which the information has
been sought is of a general nature and is an administrative
matter to be looked into by the concerned department. Such
isolated queries are not covered under the definition of term
‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has
thus rightly conveyed to this effect.
Further as regard immunity provided to the Organisations
included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, including BRDB,
the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and
human rights violations is not excluded in respect of these
organizations from the purview of the Act.”
Shri Mahender Kr. Singh has then moved his second appeal before us
with the following prayer:-
“I hereby request the CIC to direct the Public Authority to
give advice regarding my queries related to promotion in2
Central Government departments, in order to simplify the
question I am presenting it is the simplified version as
under:-
1(a) promotion rules for GOI employees, where a
employee has attained the minimum eligibility criteria
for promotion to next grade (Say not technical to
technical) before another senior employee of the
same cadre (say both belong to LDC cadre but the
second one has joined before first one in LDC cadre,
but minimum educational qualification for promotion
is attained by the first one earlier than the second
one). And whether the action of the government
department is justifiable in normal course if it has
first promotes the employees who has got the
requisite eligibility criteria after (one or more years)
the former candidate (please advice).
1(b) whether the seniority for departmental promotion is
calculated based on the total length in service in
central government or total length in service after
attaining the minimum qualification for the concerned
post (with specific reference to group C posts).
Note: The public authority may also provide any additional
documents/ order copy/ advices/ circulars etc issued by
the public authority to Government departments that are
covered in RTI domain. The questions may further be
simplified by CIC.
Q. 2 The question two is related to whether Protection/
Immunity provided to Border Road Development
Board also applies to Border Road Organization in
service/welfare/ corruption matters because it is
governed by the former.
Response from Public Authority: CPIO, DOPT has told
since BRO is a part of BRDB and BRDB is exempted from
preview of RTI Act so BRO is also exempted.
Response from First Appellate Authority: Appellate
Authority has not specifically mentioned BRO in their
answer but told that “Further as regard immunity provided
to the organizations included in second schedule of the RTI
Act, including BRDB, the information pertaining to the
allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not
excluded in respect of these organizations from the purview
of the Act.”
Appellant Shri Mahender Kr. Singh has also posed some questions in
which he sought the views of Central Information Commission in regard to
3
various issues concerning Border Roads Organisation and its “immunity”
under the Right to Information Act.
The appeal was heard on 23-7-2009. The following are present.
Respondents
Ms. Anuradha S. Chagti, Deputy Secretary, RTI.
Shri R. K. Girdhar, Under Secretary, RTI.
Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter of 1-7-2009
appellant Shri Mahender Kr. Singh opted not to be present. The questions
asked by appellant in his initial application were discussed in detail. As
respondent Ms. Anuradha Chagti DS has confirmed in the hearing there are
no standard rules of the nature sought by appellant on counting of seniority,
with each organisation making its own arrangements. The DOPT can only
speak for the CSS and the All India Services.
DECISION NOTICE
Clearly information sought by appellant Shri Mahinder Kr. Singh is not
held by the DOPT. The Organisation that would hold such information is the
Border Roads Organisation which, as already been intimated to the appellant,
is part of a larger organisation already listed at serial No.21 of the 2nd
Schedule as amended vide GSR No. 347 of 8-10-2005 and therefore not
“immune”, but not covered by the RTI Act. There remains no cause for
intervention by this Commission. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
23-7-2009
4
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
23-7-2009
5