Issue in Hindi
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01399 dated 1.8.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri N. K. Prasad
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Decision announced: 13.1.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 9.4.08, received in the DOPT on 174.08 Shri Nand
Kishore Prasad Shandilya of Aurangabad (Bihar) sought the following information
from the CPIO, DOPT:
“b) Please arrange to supply details about date of receipt of
Recommendations / Requests, decision taken, No. & date of
issue of letter conveying decision taken in the matter, in
respect of all case received for reconsideration of cadre /
state allocation of Bihar & Jharkhand at the time of division
of Bihar & Jharkhand Cadre
c) Please supply a state wise / department wise list of all such
cases where request of individual for specific cadre
allocation has been accepted by the State Cell on the
recommendations / request of State Govt. and its Advisory
Committee.
d) Please supply detailed list showing Cadre wise / State wise /
Department wise information in respect of applicants in
respect of whom State Govt. has rejected their appeals and
not reconsidered their cases, in spite of recommendations /
request received from State Advisory Committee / State
Govt. Please also detail reasons for non-reconsideration of
their cases.
e) Please supply detailed reasons State wise/ Cadre wise /
Department wise for cases reconsidered on receipt of
individual applications for change of cadre.
f) On what basis the final cadre allocation is made. Please
supply copy of directions / rules / guidance on the above
subject.
g) What are the chances for reconsideration of cadre allocation
at present? Please supply copy of directions / rules /
guidance given to DOPT (S.R.) and applied by Govt. of Bihar
and Jharkhand alongwith reference No. & Date.”
1
To this Shri Prasad received a point-wise reply dated 16.5.08, as follows:
“b) On receipt of individual applications for cadre allocation, the
final allocation is done as per rules / directives on the
subject. But no record for such decisions is maintained in
this Department.
c) State Govt. never sends their recommendations directly. It
is State Govt’s Advisory Committee which prepared final list
as per rules / directives on the subject and recommendations
to the Govt. of India. But no such list is maintained in this
Department.
d) State Governments recommend for cadre allocation only on
the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee.
Govt. of India do not get any information on the basis of
recommendation, therefore, the question of maintaining any
such lists does not arise.
e) Changes in cadre allocation, on receipt of individual
applications, are made only as per rules / directions already
issued on the subject, but no such record is kept by this
Department. The State Ministers and competent officers
take final decision only. ”
Aggrieved by this response, Shri Prasad moved an appeal before Shri V.
Peddanna, Dy. Secretary, DOPT pleading as follows:
“1. Entire information sought should be supplied free of cost.
2. Action be taken against the CPIO u/s 20(1) & (2) of the RTI
Act for providing misleading information.
3. Action may be taken on my request as per “Accountability” &
“Responsibility” clauses as enacted in the RTI Act.
4. Appeal may be heard in presence of appellant and appellant
may be provided a copy of the action taken. “
Upon this Nand Kishore Prasad Shandilya received the following order
dated 17.6.08 from Shri V. Peddanna, DS:
“It is informed that State Governments send their proposals to this
Department based on the advice of the State Advisory Committee.
These recommendations do not pertain to the entire discipline. As
and when the recommendations are received from State Govt.’s
Advisory Committee, the Government of India issues the orders of
State Allocation. State Govt. never resubmits the case to Govt. of
India for reconsideration. So far as State allocation is concerned, it
is done by Govt. of India as per extent rules & regulation already2
finalized in this regard and not according to the wishes of the
concerned persons.
Govt. of India takes decision, as per extent rules & directions, even
on the applications sent to this Department by individuals in their
personal capacity. If the request of the applicant is found covered
under the extent rules / directions, only then the matter is
reconsidered otherwise the matter is rejected and no such record is
kept, since there are thousands of such type of cases from every
State.
The Web-portal prepared in the interest of general public, by the
Govt. of India in this regard, is to provide free information to the
general public. Even then, in case you desire to get this information
from the Deptt. you can do so by paying the fee of Rs. 2/- per
page, as prescribed under the Act. The entire information sought
by you, as is available on web site is contained in 30 pages and
can be had from the web site free of cost. However, if you want the
same in writing from this Deptt. in that case you may remit Rs. 60/-
through IPO or Bank Draft.”
Shri Nand Kishore Prasad Shandilya has then moved his second appeal
before us with the following prayer:
1. The CPIO should be directed to furnish information as
sought at the earliest.
2. Action should be taken against the concerned under
Sec. 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
3. The CIC should direct the concerned public authority to
compensate the applicant.
4. Unsatisfactory, incomplete and misleading information
furnished by the CPIO & first appeal rejected.
5. The applicant is still suffering due to negligence of the
CPIO and First Appellate Authority.”
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 13.1.2010. The following
are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Aurangabad
Shri N. K. Prasad
Respondents at CIC Chambers, New Delhi
Shri V. Peddanna, Dy. Secretary
Shri M. N. Sharma, Under Secretary
Shri V. Tirkey, Section Officer3
Respondent Shri Peddanna submitted that such information, as is held by
the DOPT, has been provided to appellant. However, appellant also wanted to
know the details of each of the complaints received and their disposal by the
DOPT information, which, according to Under Secretary Shri M. S. Sharma, will
take years to collate. However, he submitted that in accordance with this
Commission’s directions, the information is being collated to be uploaded on
DoPT’s website to ease access to this kind of information in compliance with Sec
4 (1) (b), for those who wish to have it. Appellant Shri Prasad on the other hand
submitted that he would wish to see complete information and that such a record
should be maintained by the DOPT.
DECISION NOTICE
Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as follows:
“Sec.7 (9)
An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is
sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the
public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
preservation of the record in question.”
This would imply that if the public authority does not hold the information
sought by an applicant in the form in which it is sought, it is open to the public
authority to offer it in some other form. In this case respondents readily agreed
that if there was any information regarding any particular case(s) that appellant
Shri Prasad seeks, they will readily make this available to him.
We agree that to supply the general information sought in the form asked
for in the present case, will “disproportionately divert” the resources of the DOPT
and could even compromise the preservation of the record in question. The
information sought is indeed being placed in the public domain by the DOPT. In
accordance with sec. 7(9), therefore, the plea of respondents is accepted and the
information sought by appellant Shri Prasad is to be made available on the
website although will not allow complete disclosure within the time limit mandated
4
u/s 7(1) of the Act. On the other hand, if appellant wishes to modify his request
for information, the matter can be considered by CPIO on its merits. This appeal
is disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13.1.2010
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
13.1.2010
5