CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00949 dated 5-5-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Noren Kr. Meitei;
Respondent: Dep't of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Decision announced 24.9.'09
FACTS
By an application of 8-12-2007 Shri Noren Kr. Meitei of Vadodara
applied to the CPIO (CS-III) DOPT seeking the following information:
“1. List with names of Group ‘C’ officers declare Surplus and
registered on your roll with date of declaration as surplus by
which department and date of Registration on Surplus Roll of
DOPT’s (for the above period).
2. List with names and address of the officers who were
redeployed/ sponsored year-wise, with the date of declare
surplus, date of redeployment, in which Department,
Designation (cadre), Scale of Pay, Education Qualification
required in the post in which they were sponsored (From
1.1.1977 to 1.12.2005).
3. The year wise break up of the employees declared surplus
and in which year they were re-deployed (1.1.1997 to
1.12.2005).
4. After my declaration as surplus in 1996 and the Registration
of surplus roll in July 1988, your office were sponsored
following No. of Officers in various departments.
S. No. Period/ Year No. of Group 'C' Surplus
Employees who have been
redeployed
1. 1997 50
2. 1998 18
3. 1999 71
4. 2000 79
5. 2001 74
6. 2002 13
7. 2003 223
8. 2004 139
9. 2005 173*
Where the Officers were redeployed during the period 1997-
2005 and for which position I was stand and the reasons for not
sponsoring/ redeploying my name, during the period 1997-2005.
5. The person to whom ‘No objection Certificate’ were
granted for Non-Availability of Group ‘C’ surplus staff1
candidate in surplus Cell given during these years and for
which post with the name of the Department.”
To this Shri Noren Kr. Meitei received a response dated 10-1-08 from
CPIO Ms. Savita Pandhi, SO, DOPT stating that the information sought has
not been found maintained in that Department. Shri Meitei has then moved
an appeal before Dy. Secretary (R&R) DOPT on 18-1-08 complaining that “till
date I have not received any reply/ communication from your end.”
In his order of 1-2-2008 appellate authority Shri Raj Kishore, DS (R&R) has
directed as follows:
“The information as desired by you has already been sent to you
vide this Department’s letter of even No. dated 10th January,
2008. However, another copy of the same is enclosed
herewith.”
This application has stemmed from a letter of 24-4-2007 received by
appellant Shri Meitei from CPIO Ms. Savita Pandhi in which she has, in
response to an earlier RTI application of appellant provided information “to the
extent maintained by this Department”. In his prayer before us in his second
appeal, therefore, appellant Shri Meitei has pleaded as follows:
“The DOPT’s letter dated 24.4.2007 and 10.1.2008 both are
contradictory and I am not satisfied with the reply of CPIO as
well as appellate authority of DOPT’s. Hence I had approach
your good office for intervening in the matter and requested to
issue necessary direction to the concerned authority to give me
the information as requested by me vide application dated
8.12.2007 under RTI Act, 2005.
It is further to be noted that no opportunity of being heard was
given by First Appellate Authority (FAA) while disposing of my
appeal dated 18.1.2008 and thereby FAA as violated principle of
natural justice.
Necessary penalty as deem fit by your honour may be imposed
on the Public Authority for non-submission of correct information
and also on First Appellate Authority for violation of principle of
natural justice.”
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 24-9-2009. The
following are present.
Appellants (at NIC Studio, Vadodara)
Shri Noren Kr. Meitei.
Respondents
2
Ms. Savita Pandhi, Section Officer.
Shri Raj Kishore, DS (AA).
We had received a representation from Shri Raj Kishore, DS seeking
exemption from appearance on health grounds. However, he is also present.
Appellant Shri Meitei submitted that as intimated to him by CPIO Ms.
Pandhi in her letter of 24-4-07 there are documents of this nature maintained
by the DOPT. Yet the CPIO has stated in her response to the present
application that it is not so maintained.
Shri Raj Kishore, DS clarified that the fact was that the information
sought was scattered in thousands of files since it concerns thousands of
individual to whom No Objection is given every month. Therefore, these are
not maintained in an accessible form such that copies of which could be
provided to appellant Shri Meitei.
DECISION NOTICE
From the above it is clear that barring such information as has been
destroyed according to any departmental schedule for destruction in the
Department, at least part of the information sought by appellant is indeed
available in the DOPT even if not separately maintained. Such scattered
information would indeed involve both time and expense to collate and supply.
For this there is a prescribed fee laid down in the RTI Act 2005. Under the
circumstances CPIO Ms. Savita Pandhi will now assess the cost and the time
that will be required to provide such information as is held by the DOPT on the
questions asked by appellant based on the above Rules and convey the same
to Shri N.K. Meitei for his acceptance with a copy endorsed to Shri Pankaj K.P.
Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, CIC, within 10 working days of the date of receipt of
this decision notice. Thereafter if the expenses are accepted and deposited
by the appellant, CPIO will proceed to process and provide the information.
CPIO Ms Pandhi is also directed u/s 19 (1) (a) (i) to arrange access to
this information in the future in the form of uploaded information on the
3
website as mandated u/s 4 (1) (b) (xiii) read with section 4 (1) (d) of the Act.
We have been assured by Shri Raj Kishore that such information from 2007
onwards has indeed been uploaded. The appeal is therefore allowed. 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
24-9-2009
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
24-9-2009
4