Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000108
Name of the Appellant : Shri Balvir Singh
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
ORDER
Shri Balvir Singh, hereinafter known as the Appellant, filed an application
dated 09.06.2009 seeking the following information under the RTI Act, 2005 from
the CPIO/West District, New Delhi:
1. What is the criteria for promotion from the post of Selection Grade
ACP to Addl. DCP and Addl. DCP to DCP?
2. When an ACP of Selection GradeI is promoted to the post of Addl.
DCP?
3. Is there any time limit for being on one post in case of G.O’s?
Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director(Services) and CPIO vide his letter dated
10.08.2009 replied to the Appellant as follows:
“Point No.1 to 3. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the Selection
Grade, Junior Administrative GradeII and GradeI are given in the rule 7 of
DANIPS Rules, 2003, which are available in the website of MHA
(www.mha.nic.in).”
Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed First Appeal to the First
Appellant Authority. Smt. B. Bhamathi, Joint Secretary (UT) and Appellate
Authority vide order dated 14.10.2009 has upheld the decision of the CPIO.
However, the FAA provided a copy each of the DANIPS Rules, 2003 dated
06.08.2003 and DANIPS (Amendment) Rules, 2009 dated 11.06.2009. Not
satisfied with the reply the Appellant has filed present appeal before the
Commission in which he submits that Respondent has not provided him point
wise reply as per his request in his RTI application.
The matter was heard on 21.06.2009.
The Appellant was not present.
Shri Ashwani Kumar/Director(Services) and Shri J.K. Singh/Desk Officer
on behalf of Respondent Public Authority were present.
During the hearing the Respondent submits that complete information has
been provided to the Appellant along with relevant documents. The CPIO in his
reply has even pointed out the concerned Rule to the Appellant for his
information. The Respondent submits that the Public Authority is not supposed
to create information or to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical
questions. They can only provide such information as it exists with the Public
Authority.
After hearing the Respondent and on perusal of documents on file, the
Commission finds merit in the submission of the Respondents. The Commission
holds that complete information/documents, as available, has been provided to
the Appellant by the Respondent.
With these observations, the matter is disposed off accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
21.06.2010