Central Information Commission
Vivek Kumar vs India Meteorological Department on 30 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IMETD/A/2023/615793
VIVEK KUMAR .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
India Meteorological Department,
RTI CELL, MAUSAM BHAVAN, LODI
ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26-04-2024
Date of Decision : 29-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 16.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 17.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.03.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03-02-2024 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
1. Kindly provide the number of SC/ST employees recruited on unreserved vacancies currently serving in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B.
2. Kindly provide the category-wise staff strength in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B on 30 September 2016 and 30 April 2017.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16-01-2023 stating as under:
Number of SC/ST employees promoted on unreserved vacancies:-
SC ST Meteorologist B- 28 21 Meteorologist A- Nil Nil Category-wise staff strength in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B on 30 September 2016 and 30 April 2017 are not available. However, position of SC/ST as on 01.01.2016 and 01.01.2017 as per PBRR are furnished below:-
as on 01.01.2016 as on 01.01.2016 01.01.2027 SC ST SC ST Meteorologist B- 90 45 95 51 Meteorologist A- 125 41 111 43 Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17-01-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27-03-2023-
"The First Appeal Authority (FAA) examined the case thoroughly and observed that the CPIO has provided the information as available with the concerned section (E-I) of this office. However, the explicit information as requested by the appellant needs creation and compilation of current data. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. It is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the CPIO to create information that is not a part of the record and to interpret the rules, comment or advise on matters."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 2 of 6The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Dr. A. K. Mitra, Scientist - 'F' and CPIO accompanied with Shri Rahul Bharwan, A.A. and Shri B. K. Maurya Nistesh, S.A. present in person.
Written submission of the Respondent is taken on record. CPIO invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission dated 18-04-2024, relevant extracts of which are as under -
"...appellant requested through his RTI application (Annexure-I) to provide the number of SC/ST employees recruited on unreserved vacancies currently serving in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B and category-wise staff strength in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B as on 30 September 2016 and 30 April 2017.
CPIO received appellant's RTI application dated 17.12.2022 in this office through online RTI- MIS Portal. For getting the requisite information, CPIO forwarded his application to concerned section (Establishment-I) of this office on 22.12.2022. CPIO received a reply from E-1 on 12.01.2023 and provided the same information to the appellant through online RTI portal on date 16.01.2023 (Annexure-II).
Aggrieved from the reply of CPIO, the appellant preferred the first appeal on 18.01.2023 on the ground of providing incomplete, misleading, or false information and informed that in Point No 1, CPIO provided him wrong information and in Point No 2 incomplete information was provided. The appellant reiterated to provide the explicit information as mentioned in his RTI request. (Annexure- III). FAA in his decision dated 03.02.2023 informed that CPIO has provided the information as available with the concerned section (E-I) of this office. However, the explicit information as requested by the appellant needs creation and compilation of current data. (Annexure-IV).
It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO has provided the information as available in the concerned section of this office regarding the RTI request of the appellant. However, the explicit information as requested by the appellant needs creation and compilation of current data. Under the Page 3 of 6 provisions of RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority can be provided. It is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the CPIO to create information that is not a part of the record and to interpret the rules, comment or advise on matters."
Appellant while expressing his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply stated that the Respondent Public Authority is engaged in following the flip-flop policy in giving promotion to the reserved category candidates recruited against unserved category even against the promotional quota of post for reserved category due to which, he, being an OBC quota appointed officer of IMD, suffered a loss of six years in seniority. He submitted that candidates in his category of posts have been employed directly through employment exchange without holding any written exam or drawing of a merit list and hence, there is no way by which a reserved category candidate could have been appointed against an unreserved seat except by way of manipulation. Once a reserved category candidate is appointed against unreserved post, he/she remains an unreserved category till retirement and cannot claim benefit against the promotion quota meant for reserved category. Thus, all such appointees against unreserved posts are not entitled for double benefits, therefore, he prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
The CPIO interjected to deny the allegations of the Appellant and explained that information as available has already been supplied and information in the requested format would be tantamount to creation of data which cannot be done under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was non-receipt of specific desired information regarding number of SC/ST employees recruited on unreserved vacancies currently serving in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B. And category-wise staff strength in Meteorologist-A and Meteorologist-B on 30 September 2016 and 30 April 2017. In response to which, the CPIO provided the available information as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.Page 4 of 6
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the response of the CPIO as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the applicants under the ambit of the RTI Act, as the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to them.
It further appears during the hearing that the Appellant is embracing his career related issue for denial of his timely promotion due to wrong application of concerned Rules/Policy on promotion etc and has also been challenging the correctness of the information provided by the CPIO which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act The Appellant 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) 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. 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."Page 5 of 6
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) In view of the above, relief cannot be granted in the matter. As for his grievance, he may approach the appropriate forum for the same.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To :
The FAA. India Meteorological Department, RTI CELL, MAUSAM BHAVAN, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)