Ms. Meenakshi vs Dep’T. Of Personnel & Training on 9 September, 2009

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00688 dated 2.4.2008
                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant        -          Ms. Meenakshi
Respondent           -      Dep't. of Personnel & Training
                                   Decision announced: 9.9.2009


Facts

:

By an application of 23.1.08 Ms. Meenakshi of Gwalior (MP) applied to the
Secretary, DOPT seeking the following information with regard to “Appendix-1,
Scheduled to G.I. Dep’t. of Personnel & Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt
(EST) dated 8.9.93:

‘1. The Ranks of DIG, Addl. DIG and Commandant in Para
Military Forces are equivalent to which rank of Army for the
purpose of this notification?

2. What is the basis of deciding equivalence of Para Military
Officers and Army Officers for this purpose? Is it Pay or
something else?

3. Whether, a Promotee Officer in Para Military Forces who
has become Class I Officer after attaining the age of 40 is
considered at par with Army Officer as there is no concept of
Promotee Commissioned Officer in Army.’

To this Ms. Meenakshi received a response from CPIO Shri A. K.

Cashyap, US DOPT dated 3.1.08 refusing the information, as follows:

“The Right to Information Act does not require the CPIO to create
any information or to define or interpret any information. He is only
required to furnish information which already exists. In your case,
you have not asked for any information but simply asked for a
clarification, which is out of the purview of the RTI Act.’

Not satisfied Ms. Meenakshi moved an appeal before Shri K. G. Verma,
Director / Appellate Authority in which she has specifically stated “That the
circular has used the term of equivalent posts in the Paramilitary Forces but it
has not been stated in the Circular as to which post of Paramilitary Forces is
equivalent to the post of Colonel in Army. Since it is not mentioned in this

1
circular, it must be available somewhere else with the Department and my
application under Right to Information Act is pertaining to that list only.’ Upon this
Shri K. G. Verma, Director, DOPT in a reasoned order of 29.2.08 has come to
the following conclusion:

“As far as Department of Personnel & Training is concerned, the
information is not available. However, such information may be
available with the Ministry of Home Affairs in as much as that
Ministry is concerned with the matters relating to Para Military
Forces. A copy of the application of the appellant is, therefore,
forwarded to that Ministry under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

That Ministry may furnish the information to the appellant. The
appellant is advised to make further correspondence with that
Ministry.’

Subsequently, in a latter of 18.3.08 Shri Barun Kumar Sahu, Director
(Pers), MHA has issued the following order:

“The application was examined. The application concerns Central
Para Military Force, which are listed in schedule II of RTI Act. The
information sought foes not concern of human rights violation or
corruption.”

Ms. Meenakshi has then moved her second appeal before us with the
following prayer:

‘1. The Department of Personnel may please be directed to
provide the requisite information at the earliest as possible
as the children of the officers of Para Military are facing
problem in getting OBC Certificate from the competent
authority because of ambiguity in the circular.

2. That, Shri Barun Kumar Sahu, Director (Personnel), 1st
Appellate Authority in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Shri
K. G. Verma, Director, 1st appellate authority in the
Department of Personnel and Training be punished for
denying information on flimsy grounds.’

The appeal was heard on 9.9.09. The following are present:

Respondents
Shri G. S. Pundir, US, DOPT
Shri Sunil Kumar Adlakha, Section Officer
Shri Barun Kumar Sahu, Director (Pers), MHA

2
Although arrangement had been made for videoconference with Gwalior,
appellant Ms. Meenakshi has opted not to be present. In clarification of his order
of 18.3.08 Shri Barun Kumar Sahu Director (Pers0 MHA submitted that the MHA
has no such list. Since the notification in question was with regard to reservation,
he was of the view that the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment might hold
the information but he was uncertain. The other alternative was to refer the
matter to Para Military Forces which he was not able to do because these
covered u/s 24(1). It was for this reason that he has provided the answer of
18.3.08 to appellant Ms. Meenakshi worded in the way that he has.

It was clarified by CPIO Shri G. S. Pundir, US, DOPT that DOPT itself has
no such list.

DECISION NOTICE

Under sec. 2(j) of the RTI Act, “right to information means the right to
information accessible under this Act, which is held by or under the control of any
public authority 1 “. In this case, the information sought by appellant is indeed not
held by either DOPT or MHA, as per their own admission. Nevertheless, the
initial response from the DOPT by CPIO Shri Kashyap was flawed because when
the notification in question made reference to equivalent posts, it is to be
assumed that that reference has some substantive meaning, thereby implying
that such an equivalence must stand established within Government, which is the
plea taken by Ms. Meenakshi in her first appeal before Shri K. G. Verma,
Director. However, because the information sought is not held by this
Department and they are uncertain of whether it is even held by the third Ministry
mentioned, although both were of the view that that Ministry should hold such
information, the responses provided to Ms. Meenakshi both by the DOPT at the
appellate level and the MHA are within the letter of the RTI Act and, therefore,
upheld.

1

Underlined by us for emphasis

3
However, the processing of Ms. Meenakshi’s application also
demonstrates a flaw in the information held by Government, in this case the
DOPT, since the DOPT has issued the impugned notification of 8.9.93. It was
assumed that the DOPT itself or some related organization, of which DoPT would
be expected to have knowledge, would hold the information defining equivalent
posts. Therefore, DoPT id directed u/s 19(8) (a) (i) that such equivalence be so
defined as to make it accessible to a citizen either through the DOPT itself or any
other Ministry/Department so concerned. The appeal is thus allowed in part.
There will be no costs.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
9.9.2009

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.

(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
9.9.2009

4