Central Information Commission
A Ravi vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 3 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NTPCO/A/2023/120766
A Ravi .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NTPC Ltd, 4th Floor, Room No. 185,
Engineering Office Complex, Sector - 24,
Noida- 201301. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024
Date of Decision : 02.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 08.12.2022
First appeal filed on : 20.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 10.04.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.10.2022 seeking the following information:
The Hon'ble High Court of A.P in W.P. Nos. 34131 of 2011, 5094 of 2012 AND 8064 of 2012, observed as follows: -
"Perusal thereof reflects that out of the total 864 candidates who applied Page 1 of 5 for the 1.10 vacancies notified under the 2010 notification, only 779 candidates appeared for the written test conducted on 01.08.2010. The written test comprised two sections Domain Test for 60 marks and Aptitude Test for 30 marks. The qualifying mark in the written examination was also split up between these two tests. General category candidates had to secure 24 marks out of 60 in the Domain Test and 9 marks out of 30 in the Aptitude Test to qualify, while reservation category candidates had to secure 18 marks out of 60 in the Domain Test and 6 marks out of 30 in the Aptitude Test. However, as the number of candidates who secured the stipulated qualifying marks as mentioned above fell far short of the proposed 1:3 ratio for being called for the interview, the qualifying marks were reduced. These qualifying marks were split up amongst the posts as under:
Category Domain Test Aptitude Test Qyal. Marks Qyal. Marks Qyal. Marks Qyal. Marks (General) (OBC/SC/ST) Marks (OBC/SC/ST) (General) AT (Mech) 20 15 09 06 AT (Elect.) 16 12 09 06 AT (C&I) 19 14 09 06 DT (Mech). 18 13 15 11 DT (Elect.) 29 21 14 10 DT (C&I) 21 15 13 09 DT (Civil) 25 19 15 11 With reference to the letter No.01:CP:RTI-19845/2022 dated 11.10.2022 of CPIO, NTPC cited, I request you to furnish an attested copy of the Syllabus of written tests conducted, on 01.08.2010, in order to fill 85 Artisan Trainee (AT) vacancies in the following categories/trades (I.T.I) notified under the 2010 notification [Recruitment-NE/2010 (NTPC Recruitment- 2010)/ Employment Notification dated 01.04.2010 of NTPC, Visakhapatnam] based on the letter No. SMPP/HR/IE dated 07.04.2010 of Mgr. (HR), NTPC Simhadri u/s. 6 (1) and 2 (J) (ii) of RTI Act in the larger public interest:-
S.No. Categories/Trades (I.T.I)
1 Artisan Trainee/AT (Mechanical)
2 Artisan Trainee/AT (Electrical)
3 Artisan Trainee/AT (Control &
Instrumentation)
Page 2 of 5
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.12.2022 stating as under:
"No copy of prescribed syllabus for written tests are found against the notifications issued in 2010."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 10.04.2023, held as under.
"No copy of prescribed syllabus for written tests are found against the notifications issued in 2010."
Further, it is stated that the recruitment was done through Employment Exchange and the qualifications required were that of ITI in trade of Fitter/Elec./Instrumentation/Electronics Artisan Trainee and Diploma in Engg. (Mech./Elect./Electronics/Civil) for Diploma Trainee.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri S Nandan, AGM & CPIO and Shri Vikash Kumar, DGM present in person. Shri Dharmendra Singh, DGM (Law) & CPIO present through Video- Conference.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent while defending the case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 08.12.2022, they have informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted that no such information as sought by the Appellant is available in their records. Further, the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Page 3 of 5 Appellant as per his RTI application and as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 08.12.2022.
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 do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. Further, the CPIO is neither supposed to create information nor to interpret information, nor to furnish clarification to the Appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
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 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, NTPC Ltd, 4th Floor, Room No. 185, Engineering Office Complex, Sector - 24, Noida -201301.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)