Central Information Commission
Mr. K Padhan vs Indian Council Of Medical Reserch on 13 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000059/18379
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000059
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. K. Padhan
H- 82, SECTOR - 2, ROURKELA
ORISSA, PIN - 769 006
Respondent : Dr. P. K. Atul
Public Information Officer & Scientist "D"
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MALARIA RESEARCH
(Indian Council of Medical Research)
Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 077
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2011
PIO replied : 17/10/2011 & 29/06/2011
First Appeal : 28/11/2011
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 04/01/2012
Information Sought:
With reference to the Order No. 75/10/85-LCD-Il; dated 20-11-1986 of the Director General, ICMR regarding sanction of 342 temporary posts for IDVC Project under NIMR I request you to provide the following information under section-6 (1) (a) of the Right to Information Act-2005.
1. Names of IDVC Project employees and date of their initial appointment who were appointed against the 342 sanctioned posts under different designations as specified in the Order No. 75/10/85-ECD-lI; dated 20-11-1986 of DC, ICMR by following the regular recruitment .procedure of ICMR. The information is required to be provided post wise.
2. Names of IDVC Project employees and date of their initial appointment who were appointed against 342 sanctioned posts under different designations as specified in the Order No. 75/10/85-ECD-Il; dated 20-11-1986 of DC, ICMR on ad-hoc basis without following the regular recruitment pro4ire of ICMR and are still continuing in their respective posts. The information is required to be provided post wise.
3. Names of IDVC Project employees and date of their initial appointment whose appointments were not made against the 342 sanctioned posts under different designations as specified in the Order No 75/10/85 ECD-Il, dated 20 11 1986 of DC, ICMR and are still continuing in their respective posts. The information is required to be provided post wise.
4. Please specify the number of posts under different designations those are lying vacant as on 19th April 2011.
Reply of the CPIO:
Point No. 1 to 5 - The information had been provided whichever is available in the records. It is very difficult to provide the mode of appointment of about the 342 employees at the first instance since the appointments were not made in a single instance but made time to time and list of employees appointed had been variable from time to time.Page 1 of 2
In the light of the facts mentioned above, it is suggested that Mr. K. Padhan, Research Scientist may visit the Institute for obtaining desired information after verifying the record on the convenient date under intimation to this office at least two week prior intimation.
2nd Reply:
List of name of the employees and date of their initial appointments who were appointed against the 342 sanctioned posts under different designation is enclosed Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete and unsatisfactory and FAA has not ordered.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K. Padhan on video conference from NIC-Sundargarh Studio; Respondent: Dr. P. K. Atul, Public Information Officer & Scientist "D";
The PIO has provided the list of people of 1985-86 who were employed. The PIO has however stated that the information in the format sought by the Appellant is not available in the compiled form and hence had offered an inspection of relevant records to the Appellant. The PIO has tried to do some compilation and has sent this to the Appellant. The appellant is still not satisfied with the categorization provided. Since the data is of 1985-86 and would only be available in various paper files, the PIO cannot be expected to spend a lot of time in categorization and compiling it. The Appellant states that he is not willing to inspect the relevant records.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is not available in the compiled form and the Appellant is not willing to inspect the records. 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 13 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 2 of 2