CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000302/SG/13646
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000302/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. R. Vijaykumar,
H-110/Fl, First Seaward Road,
Valmiki Nagar,
Chennai --600 041.
Respondent: : Mr. S. P. Roy
US & PIO
Cabinet Secretariat
Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi
RTI application: 11/06/2010
PIO reply: Not mentioned.
First appeal 11/07/2010
FAA order 22/07/2010
Second appeal 03/09/2010
Information sought:
The RTI application comprises 34 questions essentially with reference to the Guidelines for
Empanelment as Additional Secretary and Secretary to the Government of India. Questions 1-5 related to
the applicable guidelines for empanelment of IAS officers. Questions 6-8 related to empanelment orders
issued in respect of IAS officers of 1978 batch. Questions 9-12 related to empanelment orders issued for
officers of 1970-1977 batches. Question 13 asked for statistics relating to 1967- 1978 batch representation
from States. Question 14-16 asked about exceptions to North East and women officers. Question 17-18
asked about the availability of ACRs as per guidelines in respect of empanelled officers of 1967-1978
batches and Question 19 asked for details of empanelment as JS for officers empanelled as AS in respect
of batches from 1967-78. Question 20-29 asked for information on the empanelment, consideration details
and consideration of appeal, etc in respect of Shri R. Vijaykumar, IAS officer of the 1978 batch.
Questions 30-32 asked for information on the relative gradings by the Expert Panel, SCOS and original
grades in respect of the 1978 batch as also on the practice of moderation, if any and exceptions made for
inadequate representation of particular cadres.
Question 33-34 related to orders and deputations accepted for IAS officers at the level of Under Secretary.
PIO’s reply:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for First appeal:
No information received.
FAA order:
Shri R. Vijaykumar of Valmiki Nagar, Chennai filed an application dated 22.6.2010 seeking information
relating to Standing Committee on Redressal of Grievances.
2. The CPIO vide OM dated 7.7.2010 transferred the request to the Department of Administrative
Reforms and Public Grievances under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
APPEAL
3. Shri R. Vijaykumar has filed and appeal dated 7.7.2010 on the ground that he has not received any
reply to his three RTI applications dated 3.6.2010, 7.6.2010 and
22.6.2010. The appellant has requested the first Appellate Authority to direct the concerned officer to
expedite the reply within time limit prescribed under the Act.
4. In so tar as applications dated 3.6.2010 and 7.6.2010 are concerned, these are being processed in
separate files, and are under process in consultation with the concerned divisions.
5. After obtaining all the relevant facts and carefully considering them I find that the CPIO has rightly
transferred the request to the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances as the subject
matter relating to Standing Committee of Redressal of Grievances comes under the business allotted to
that Department.
Grounds for Second appeal:
No reply giving the information sought has been provided. The reply of the FAA is diversionary and in
respect of these two letters, stated that “these are being processed in separate files, and are under process
in consultation with the concerned divisions.” Even now, more than one month after the date of appeal,
the information has not been furnished nor any communication received on the stage of efforts in that
direction.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent at NIC- Chennai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. S. P. Roy, US & PIO;
The respondent states that the Appellant has filed the number of RTI applications each having a
number of queries. The Appellant is basically seeking information about empanelment of 1978 batch as
Additional Secretaries. The respondent states that some of the information sought by the Appellant is not
available in the format desired by him and compiling it would disproportionately divert the resources of
the public authority. The respondent has also stated that the appellant has approached the Court in the
matter of his empanelment. The respondent therefore states that the information should be provided only
after the matters are settled in the court. This is an untenable stand since there is no exemption under the
RTI Act for subjudice matters.
In view of this the Commission directs the PIO to provide the information which is available to the
Appellant. Where the information is not available in the collated form and it would disproportionately
divert the resources of the public authority it may not be given.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as per the directions given above to
the appellant before 18 August 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RU)