Central Information Commission
Nilesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 5 February, 2026
के ीयसू चनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955
CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959
Nilesh Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Railway Recruitment Board,
O/o Divisional Railway Manager,
Divisional Office Compound,
Mumbai Central - 400 008 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05-02-2026
Date of Decision : 05-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are clubbed together as
the Appellant/Complainant is common, subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal and complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 10.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 11.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.06.2024
Information sought:
Page 1 of 6CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955 CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23-03-2024 seeking the following information:
"Railway recruitment board ntpc cen 01 2019 was conducted on date_ for which I had appeared. Initially I was disqualified in typing exam, even when my marks was 75 which was above cutoff marks. After re- evaluation of my typing transcript I was got qualified due to which the board changed the status of my result from Not-Qualified to Qualified. Then I was called for document verification and medical, after which they allotted me the post of Senior clerk cum typist but i deserve the post of Junior account assistant because my marks is 75 and the students who were allocated the post of Junior account assistant in the 1st panel had cut off of 73.33. I did not get the post which I deserves. I have faith that you will provide me accurate information as soon as possible."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 10-04-2024 stating as under:
"In terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005, only recorded information (borne on paper, Magnetic tape, CD, HDD, Computer/Server) can be sought as information. Whereas, query raised by you contains "grievance and request" which does not comes under the preview of the RTI Act- 2005. However, the final Result dated 21.08.2023 available on official website of RRB-Mumbai i.e. www.rrbmumbai.gov.in,may be referred, wherein the roll no. 241195260365332 is recommended for appointment against category no.5 on Western Railway. Further, you may refer para no. 1.11 of the CEN, wherein it is mentioned that on completion of all stages of recruitment process, RRBs will allot Post & Railway/Unit as per the option of the eligible candidates ONLY subject to merit, medical standard and vacancy position. Once candidates have been empanelled as per their merit/choice, they will forfeit the right to be considered for any other post/category within the same level of 7th CPC."
3. The Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11-04-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 24-06-2024.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 2 of 6
CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955 CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959 Appellant/Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Vikas Ramesh Chavan, Member Secretary & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint/Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.06.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"In terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005, only recorded information (borne on paper, Magnetic tape, CD, HDD, Computer/Server) can be sought as information. Whereas, query raised by you contains "grievance and request" which does not comes under the preview of the RTI Act- 2005. Further, he may refer para no. 1.11 of the CEN, wherein it is mentioned that, on completion of all stages of recruitment process, RRBs will allot Post & Railway/Unit as per the option of the eligible candidates ONLY subject to merit, medical standard and vacancy position. Once candidates have been empanelled as per their merit/choice, they will forfeit the right to considered for any other post/category within the same level of 7th CPC.
However, RRBs also reserve the right to allot Post/Railway/Unit not opted by the candidates, if considered necessary in administrative interest, subject to the candidate (s) meeting the requirements of the post allotted. In case of shortfall in empanelment of candidates or other exigencies, RRB reserves the right to utilize the extra list of candidates (standby list), if required, as per the merit and option of the candidates."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that factual position has already been informed to the Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 10.04.2024. The FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has not specific information in his RTI application and his query is more in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion from the CPIO.
Page 3 of 6CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955 CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959 Decision:
8. The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal and complaint was non-furnishing of complete information by the CPIO within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant/Complainant as per his RTI application.
9. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant/Complainant. The CPIO can only provide information which is readily available in their records.
10. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
11. It further transpired that the Appellant/Complainant in his Second Appeal/Complaint/RTI application is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act and has also been challenging the correctness of the response provided. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
12. The Appellant/Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
13. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Page 4 of 6 CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955 CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959 Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
14. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Now, one of the two clubbed cases being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."Page 5 of 6
CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955 CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959
16. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent informed that they have shared a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant/Complainant on his e-mail address.
17. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The above-mentioned Second Appeal and Complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011-26107040 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, Railway Recruitment Board, O/o Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office Compound, Mumbai Central - 400 008 Sh. Nilesh Kumar Vill. - Cheya, P.O. - Riula, P.S. - Atri, Distt. - Gaya, Bihar - 805 109 Page 6 of 6 CIC/MORLY/A/2024/626955 CIC/MORLY/C/2024/626959 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)