Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001339
Dated 28th October, 2009
Name of the Applicant : MR. S. N. PANDITA
Name of the Public Authority : DOT
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 26.06.09 with the CPIO / DOT, Delhi
requesting for information against 17 points related to the promotion TES Group
B officers. The CPIO replied on 21.08.09 providing point wise information. On
not satisfying with reply, the Appellant filed his First Appeal on 30.07.09 stating
that desired information has not been provided and the Appellate Authority to
arrange to provide the same. On not receiving any reply from the Appellate
Authority, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the CIC requesting for the
information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the
hearing for 28th October, 2009.
3. Mr. R.R. Tiwari represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent in his written as well as oral submissions stated that the The
Appellant vide Sl.No.1 of the application dated 26/06/2009 had sought the
number of officers, who had opted for retention in Government service after
formation of BSNL. Accordingly, the information regarding number of TES
Group-B officers, who had given option for retention in govt. service, was
intimated to the Appellant as per the available records. He stated that the
Appellant’s averment that the number of only in-service officers were intimated
to him is based on assumption, which he has made without obtaining the
documents/list. He added that the Appellant in Sl.No.2 of the application had
sought number of officers with reference to information sought vide Sl.No.1.
Further, the information sought against point No.1 was relating to position
emerging after absorption of Group-B officers in BSNL/MTNL. Accordingly, the
Appellant was asked to deposit the requisite amount for obtaining the
promotion order issued after finalization of absorption.
6. As for the Sl.No.5 of the application, the Respondent stated that the factual
position was intimated as the orders for promotion were issued in respect of the
eligible officers as per the instruction / guidelines on the subject. The position
indicated against Sl.No.10 and 13 of the application are as per records and
congruous. As indicated against Sl.No.10 no vacancy was taken as unfilled on
account of empanelment of retired/voluntarily retired officers for considering
further promotion against these vacancies. Further, as intimated against
Sl.No.13 of the application none of the vacancies, which remained unfilled on
account of retirement/VR, were carried forward. He stated that in this
connection the Appellant was also given opportunity for inspection of relevant
files. However, he has not inspected the file. As such the contention of the
appellant that he did not avail the opportunity. According to the Respondent
the position as available in the records has been furnished to the Appellant in
response to Sl.No.14-15 of his application under RTI Act. The information
furnished against Sl.16-17 is also based on factual position, as there is no
information available regarding crucial date for determining vacancies. He
further clarified that information furnished vide letter dated 28/07/09 to Shri
Mangat Singh under RTI Act regarding the crucial date as 1st January of the
vacancy year is for determining the eligibility for consideration for promotion by
the DPC as stipulated in DoP&T OM No.22011/9/98-Estt.(D) dated 08/09/98.
7. The Appellant, however, refuted the contentions of the Respondent. He stated
that the CPIO had furnished the number of in-service TES Group B officers as on
finalization of options formalized in n2005 instead of the number and list of TES
Group B officers who opted for their retention in Government Service after the
formation of BSNL ie. 1.10.2000. He alleged that there is total discrimination
and dispute about the number of vacancies for promotion in the cadre,
subsisting only 154 TES Group B officers who have opted for retention in the
Government service on finalization as against many fold number who opted for
retention in the Government service but since have retired in the intervening
period, prior to finalization of options, this fact having a direct bearing on the
number of actual vacancies available for promotion. He further stated that at
point no. 2 , he had sought the number of officers selected for promotion as JTS
after the formation of BSNL while the CPIO has yet again provided the copy of
promotion orders issues after the finalization of options , which he had not
sought. He further pointed out that at point no. 5 of the RTI application, he had
sought whether promotion orders have been issued against all vacancies as
disclosed by CPIO against point no. 3 to which the CPIO had replied that
promotions were issued to eligible officers, thereby providing misleading
information. The Appellant’s contention was that number of vacancies does not
imply eligible officers. The Appellant further contended that contradictory
information has been provided against points 10 and 13. With regard to point
10 the CPIO had stated against that no vacancies in JTS of ITS Group A were
taken as unfilled whereas against point 13 he had stated that vacancies/posts
which remained unfilled for years 1995-96 to 2000-01 have not been carried
forward. While arguing further on this subject, the Appellant stated that the
CPIO had admitted to have provided contradictory information but had refused
to provide him the ruling in accordance to which the vacancies were not carried
forward and also information on whether DOPYT OM dated 2.7.97 was followed
in DOT order dated 19.3.09 in court case CP120/2009 while considering 33
vacancies only. According to the Appellant, against points 16 and 17, the CPIO
had confirmed that no information /guidelines are available for determining the
cut off/ crucial date of vacancies. However, the same CPIO in a separate RTI
reply had confirmed to the contrary and had even cited an example along with
his reply.
8. The Commission, after serious consideration of the submissions from both the
Appellant and the Respondent, is constrained to observe that there indeed
seems to be wilful discrimination while furnishing information to various RTI
applicants and also that by his own admission, the CPIO’s replies to RTI
queries are contradictory, thereby pointing towards a flippant attitude on the
part of the CPIO while dealing with RTI matters. The Commission would like to
point out at this juncture that mere admission of the fact that wrong
information has been given inadvertently does not absolve the CPIO of his
responsibility to provide correct information, as per the RTI Act , and warns him
that such lapses will not be condoned in future. The Commission directs the
CPIO to provide information against point 1, 2, 5 & 10 of the RTI request and
against points 13, 14, 16 & 17 to allow inspection of the files by the Appellant
and to provide him with certified copies of the documents he requires, free of
cost. All information to be provided by 25th November, 2009 under intimation to
the Commission.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. S.N. Pandita
154, New Ashiana,
CGHS, Sector -6, Plot 10,
Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110 075
2. The PIO
Department of Telecommunications
Director (Staff), Room No.419
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Department of Telecommunications
O/o the DDG (Estt)
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC