In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001808
Date of Hearing : February 10, 2011
Date of Decision : February 10, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Pijush Kanti Nath
D8/4, Gharkul, Sect15,
Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai 410 210
The Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Mumbai.
Respondents
Central Railway
Office of General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ)
Chhatrapati Shivaji
Mumbai
Represented by: Shri Vipin Kumar, PIO and Shri Siddhartha Sahay, O.S.--present at NIC VC facility at
Mumbai
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001808
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant’s RTIapplication dated 06.05.2010 to PIO, Central Railway had sought information
against 4 items (ad) regarding his being treated ineligible by the public authority for the post of Asst.
Personnel Officer (Gr. B).
2. Through his communication dated 07.06.2010, the PIO forwarded a reply dated 07.06.2010 of the
APO(Admn) to the Applicant through which pointwise reply was furnished to the Applicant.
Thereafter, in response to the Applicant’s 1stappeal dated 07.07.2010, the Appellate Authority, on
16.08.2010, provided to the Appellant a copy of the letter dated 03.10.2006 issued by Railway Board
in connection with ‘promotion from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’ conditions of eligibility which clarified the
subject case.
3. The Appellant, however, was not satisfied with the above information and, therefore, approached the
Commission through the present petition dated 01.10.2010 requesting that he may be provided the
copy of Rules and/or Codes of Ministry of Railway which shows the ineligible conditions as shown by
HQs office CSTM’s L.No. HPB/785/R/BD/APO/Gr. ‘B’/LGS dated 27.01.2010 and 03.03.2010.
Decision
4. The Respondents, during the hearing, stated that they have provided to Appellant the correct position
of Rule through AA’ decision dated 16.08.2010. The Appellant, however, did not agree with the
Respondents and insisted on receiving the ‘correct’ information.
5. It was noted that the Appellant is having certain grievances against the public authority for not
allowing him to appear in the departmental exam and that now he is trying to elicit from the
Respondents the Rule which could contradict the decision taken by them. However this is not
possible since no such rule exists on record and hence cannot be provided. The Appellant might
have a genuine reason for seeking such information but the forum to address this grievance is
surely not the Commission. Nonetheless, in order to help the Appellant, it was suggested by the
Commission that the Respondents give a personal hearing to the Appellant and sort out the matter in
hand.
6. In view of the above, it is held that the information has adequately been furnished to the Appellant.
7. The appeal is accordingly directed to be closed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Pijush Kanti Nath
D8/4, Gharkul, Sect15,
Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai 410 210
2. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
Office of General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ)
Chhatrapati Shivaji
Mumbai
3. The Public Information Officer
Central Railway
Office of General Manager
Public Information Cell (HQ)
Chhatrapati Shivaji
Mumbai
4. Officer Incharge, NIC