Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/001102 -SM dated 27.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 05.01.2009
Appellant: Shri Ram Kumar Singh
Respondents: Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)
The case was heard through video conferencing on 02.01.2009.
The Appellant and Respondents were both present in the Mumbai
studio of the NIC.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present:
(i) Sh. K. Abrahim, CPIO (DAE)
(ii) Sh. Ram, Section Officer (DAE)
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the DAE, in his application
dated 27.11.2007, seeking a number of information on the criteria, norms and
bench marks for departmental promotion from the post of Assistant Security
Officer to the Security Officer. The CPIO, in his reply dated 17.12.2007,
provided item wise reply in which he withheld certain information as being
confidentially held in a fiduciary relationship being exempt under Section 8(1)
(e) of the Right to Information Act. Against this order of the CPIO, the
Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 24.1.2008 which
the Appellate Authority decided in his order dated 26.02.2008. The Appellate
Authority disposed off the appeal on the ground that the CPIO was justified in
rejecting the request for information. The Appellant has now approached this
Commission in second appeal.
3. We heard both the sides. The Respondents admitted that the DPC
adopted certain bench mark for promotion which was to be arrived at by
adding up of the marks obtained by the employee concerned in Written Test,
Interview and his Performance Appraisal Report. They argued that since the
DPC proceedings were confidential and the DPC recommendations were held
in a fiduciary relationship, this could not be revealed under the Right to
Information Act. We cannot agree with this argument. The Departmental
Promotion Committee has to follow the rules and regulations governing
promotion from one rank to other in the Government and its proceedings
have to be on transparent and objective criteria. If a certain bench mark is
decided for promotion, then there is no reason why that bench mark should
not be known, at least to those, who are being considered for such promotion.
In this case, the Appellant himself was one of the officers considered for
promotion by the DPC. The recommendations of the DPC are made by the
Departmental Promotion Committee in discharge of their duties and are part
of the official record. Such recommendations cannot be described as
information held in a fiduciary relationship and exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1) (e) of the Right to Information Act.
4. In view of the above, we direct the CPIO concerned to provide
specifically the marks awarded to the Appellant in the DPC against each head,
namely, Written test, Interview and Performance Appraisal Report. We also
direct the CPIO to communicate the bench mark in terms of score which was
adopted by the DPC for deciding promotion from the Assistant Security
Officer to Security Officer within 10 working days from the receipt of this
order.
5. With the above directions, we dispose off the appeal. Copies of this
order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar