In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001601
Date of Hearing : August 9, 2011
Date of Decision : August 9, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Dr. P M Singhdeo
AD1, Devi Marg Bani Park,
Jaipur
Rajasthan
The Appellant was present in person..
Respondents
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri V. Rajagopal, Dy. Secy.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001601
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 14.04.2011, filed with the PIO, Railway Board, New
Delhi, sought certain information (such as, date of proposal of promotion; date of promotion order;
date of vigilance clearance; date of note put up to Secretary’s branch; date of DPC; date of
circulation date of signature of members and chairman; approval of minister; total time taken in
issuance of promotion order; copy of note sheets, correspondences at various branches, remarks of
various authorities etc.) in respect of the promotion case of one Shri Vishwanath Shankar (IRTS
officer), who, according to the Appellant was facing CBI investigation.
2. The PIO, on 09.05.2011, forwarded the reply of Under Secretary (c) to the Applicant who had
declined the disclosure of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct. The Applicant, being
aggrieved with the said reply, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 22.5.2011. The
AA vide his order dated 13.06.211 provided to the Appellant a brief apprising note of Under
Secretary (c)II which reiterated the PIO’s reply to the Appellant. The Appellant thereafter filed the
present petition (dated 14.07.2011) before the Commission requesting for the disclosure of the
information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that the information requested by him is not personal to the
3rdparty as it only deals with a promotion exercise which was carried out by the public authority in
which, according to him, two panels (viz., IRTS and RPF) were discussed on the same day wherein
the Appellant as well as the 3rdparty (Shri Vishwanath Shankar) were the aspirants among others. He
stated that while the 3rdparty had received the promotion within 15 days of the said panel, he is yet to
get promoted. The Respondents, on their part, maintained their position that the information herein is
exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct as it is, according to them, personal to the 3rdparty.
3. After examining the records and on hearing both sides, I see nothing in the present request for
information which can be categorized as personal to the 3rdparty because all what the Appellant has
desired for is records relating to the promotion of a ‘Government Servant’ which he/she receives
against the services he/she renders to the public through the Government machinery. It is, therefore,
directed that the PIO shall furnish the requested information, as available in the records, to the
Appellant by 30th August, 2011.
4. Appeal is disposed of with the above directives.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Dr. P M Singhdeo
AD1, Devi Marg Bani Park,
Jaipur
Rajasthan
2. The Appellate Authority -II &
Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
3. Public Information OfficerII &
J.S. (G)
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant
may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI
application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the
Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the
complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.