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/WB/A/2009/000229 Name of Appellant : Sh. P. Suresh Babu Name of Respondent : M/o Home Affairs Background
The Appellant, Sh. P. Suresh Babu, General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Operational
Staff Association Directorate of Coordination (Police Wireless), had filed an
application dated 18.09.2008 under the RTI Act. seeking information on various
issues concerning Technical staff working in the Directorate of Coordination
(Police Wireless), M/o Home Affairs. The CPIO/ Directorate of Coordination
(Police Wireless) vide his letter dated 15.10.2008 provided information at point no.
1, 2, 3, 5(a&b) and 6 of the RTI application, while informing the Appellant that
information on other points were being obtained from the concerned sections of
the Directorate. Subsequently, reply to point no. 10(a & b), 11 & 12 and to point
no. 3 were provided. The Appellant thereafter filed a first appeal dated
24.10.2008 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)/Jt. Director Coordination
(Police & Wireless), submitting therein that information sought at query nos. 4, 7, 8
& 9 had not been furnished by the CPIO, and that incomplete, not to the point and
misleading replies had been provided on various other points. The FAA vide his
order dated 20.11.2008 replied to query no. 4, 7, 8 & 9 and also clarified / upheld
the replies of the CPIO on various other points. The Appellant has thereafter, filed
a second appeal before the Commission, wherein he submits that the Respondent
has provided misleading / false / not to the have point information to query no.
8(a), 8(b), 9, 10(a), 11 and 12 and denied information to query at point no. 7(a &
b) and 13 of the RTI Application.
2. The matter was heard on 20.01.2010
3. Sh. P. Suresh Babu, the Appellant was present.
4. Sh. P. K. Singh, Director, Sh. M.S.N. Swamy, Dy. Director, Sh. C. P.S.
Nagra, A.D.(M) and Sh. Phool Kumar, A.D. represented the Respondent
The points raised in the second appeal and the parawise comments provided by
the Respondent are as follows:
Query No. 7(a): “Is it true that discrimination is offence as per Indian
Query No. 7(b): Is it true that equal wages for equal works are natural justice?
Comments of the Respondent:
The Respondent have held that “the information sought does not come
under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no comments.”
Query No. 13: “As per Recruitment Rules of Senior Technical Assistant,
Wireless Supervisor and Technical Assistance are also eligible for promotion if
they have passed GradI Radio Technician Test. Similarly as per the R.R. of
Senior Supervising Officer, TA (M) and TA are also eligible for promotion if they
have passed GradI Wireless Operator test. But Wireless Operators and T.A. from
Operational Side are not being provided the GradI Radio Technician Course and
vice versa. Kindly intimate as to why Wireless Supervisors and TA who have
passed GradI Operational Test are not being called for GradI Radio Technician
Course and vice versa.”
Comments of the Respondent:
As per the Right to Information Act, 2005, the applicant is required to explore the
channel of first Appellate Authority for providing the desired information if the
applicant is not satisfied with the reply of CPIO. In this case, the applicant has not
explore the channel & scope for obtaining the information from the first Appellate
The Appellant has also expressed his dissatisfaction with the information
provided to query no 8(a), 8(b), 10(a), 11 & 12 of his RTI application.
Query No. 8(a & b): “Kindly intimate the reason as to why a Wireless Operator is
getting promotion years later than a Radio Technician when both are having equal
wages in lieu of equal works and when both Operational and Maintenance Wings
are identical limps of Technical Cadre?
8(b): Kindly intimate the reasons as to why Operational Staff are being
discriminated in promotional avenues in DCPW?”
Information Provided:The Wireless Operators and Radio Technicians are
promoted to their next higher grade as per Recruitment Rules of the post as and
when vacancy(s) arise.
8(b): As such no discrimination.”
Query No. 10(a): “As per the Guidelines of DOP&T, Cadre Review should be
carried out in all Departments in every five years. If the guidelines/orders of
DOP&T are applicable to all departments, kindly intimate as to why no Cadre
Review has been taken place in DCPW ever since its inception as stated by Sh.
Sher Singh, the then J.D.(Admn.) in one his file noting.”
Information Provided: “Although efforts were made earlier, but because of the
complexities in the work force of DCPW could not materialize. However, an in
house committee has recently been set up in this regard.”
Query No. 11: “A Departmental Committee comprising of eight members was set
up for examining the feasibility of merger of Operational, Maintenance and Cipher
Wing in DCPW. As per the minutes of the meeting, the view of six members were
in supportive to the merger of three wings. Only two members (General
Secretaries of Maintenance and cipher Associations) have opposed the merger.
Kindly intimate whether the decision of a Departmental Committee is as per the
views of majority members of the committee or the committee will be dissolved for
want of a unanimous decision, which may result into the interest of minority
member? Kindly intimate the guidelines/procedures of a Departmental Committee
in arriving a decision.
Information provided: “The Committee have recommended for dissolution due to
non arrival of unanimous decision.”
Query No. 12: “The total numbers of posts of Senior Technical Assistant of
DCPW is 45 and the total number of posts of Technical Assistant (Maintenance),
which is the feeder post of Senior Technical Assistant, is 49. A proposal
demanding 15 more posts of STA for Disaster Management is also under process.
At present, the ratio of number of post of STA is to number of TA(M) is 1:1
approximately. If 15 more posts of STA will be sanctioned, the ratio will become
60:49 (the Pyramid will become inverted). As per the guidelines of Department of
Personnel & Training, Para 3.12.2 of OM No. AB14017/12/87Estt® Dated 18th
March, 1988, “feeder grade should range from 3 to 5 times the number of
sanctioned posts in the higher grade”. As per the norms of UPSC/SSC/DOPT, if
sufficient numbers of feeder posts are not available for promotion to a higher post,
i.e. if the ratio, some of the posts should be earmarked for Direct Recruitment
thought U.P.S.C. or Staff Selection Commission, kindly intimate the reason as to
why 50% or sufficient percentage posts of Senior Technical Assistant has not been
earmarked for Direct Recruitment thorough UPSC or Staff Selection Commission
when there are crores of qualified persons seeking for a job in the country.”
Information provided: “The posts of STAs are created by concerned authority
as per job requirement and filled adhering to the Recruitment Rules of the post in
In reply to this query No. 13 the Respondent have only submitted that the
Appellant has not explored the channel for obtaining the desired information from
the First Appellate Authority. The Commission does not find merit in the plea the
Respondent. The Appellant had in fact filed a first appeal before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA) who should have ensured that an appropriate reply was
provided. The FAA is therefore, directed to provide the requisite reply to the
Appellant within 15 days of receipt of the order of the Commission.
However, the Commission does not find any reason to interfere in any of
the other replies of the Respondent. With these observations/ directions, the
matter is disposed of accordingly.