Central Information Commission
Pijus Kanti De vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 18 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/NITSC/A/2018/156193 + CIC/NITSC/A/2019/101455 + 105206 +
105536 + 131434 + 131435 + 131437 + 139383 + 144514 + 144513 + 144511 +
151315
In the matter of:
Pijus Kanti De
...Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Dy. Registrar (Admn.)
RTI Cell, National Institute of Technology,
Silchar - 788 010, Assam
...Respondent
Date of hearing : 1606/2020
Date of decision : 16/06/2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second
filed on replied on filed on Order on Appeal
Dated
156193 06/06/2018 Not on Record 09/07/2018 21/08/2018 28/08/2018
101455 15/10/2018 Not on Record 19/11/2018 Not on Record 21/12/2018
105206 22/10/2018 30/10/2018 26/11/2018 Not on Record 24/01/2019
105536 20/09/2018 03/10/2018 15/10/2018 Not on Record 23/01/2019
131434 28/11/2018 Not on Record 14/01/2019 Not on Record 17/06/2019
131435 22/11/2018 Not on Record 21/01/2019 Not on Record 15/06/2019
131437 19/11/2018 Not on Record 21/01/2019 Not on Record 14/06/2019
139383 30/01/2019 23/05/2019 21/05/2019 20/06/2019 20/07/2019
144514 22/02/2019 Not on Record 09/05/2019 09/05/2019 30/08/2019
144513 19/03/2019 Not on Record 13/05/2019 Not on Record 30/08/2019
144511 05/03/2019 Not on Record 09/05/2019 Not on Record 30/08/2019
151315 25/02/2019 Not on Record 09/05/2019 Not on Record 04/10/2019
1
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant cover similar issues raised therein and the relief sought by the appellant as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties during the hearing were the same for these cases. Hence, for the sake of brevity, the cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shri Pulak Nath, Assistant Registrar & the CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2018/156193 The appellant has sought the following information/copies with reference to shortlisting of applications for the post of Professor of Mathematics and has given reference to communication No. NITS/Estt/Faculty/Advt/18 dated 30/05/2018:
1. BOG approved guidelines for the short-listing of applications for the post of Professor of Mathematics.
2. Competent Authority/BOG approved list of Screening Committee with their details - Name, Designation, Identity, Office Address, etc.
3. Screening committee report, duly signed, by all the members of Screening Committee on short listing for the post of Professor -
Mathematics and duly approved by the Competent Authority/BOG.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/101455 The appellant joined NIT Silchar in 2010 as an Associate Professor in Mathematics with AGP Rs. 9000/-. Following four faculty members joined NIT Silchar in 2010 as an Assistant Professor contemporarily with him under the same Advertisement of NIT Silchar:
1. Dr. Arup Goswami , EE Deptt.
2. Dr. Washim Arif, ECE Deptt.
3. Dr. Kedarnath Das, Maths Deptt.
4. Dr. Subrat Barik, Physics Deptt.
In regard to above he has sought the following information:
2a) Details of their working experience as per the requirement of CAS advertisement.
Name CAS Year Details of working experience claimed as per CAS Advt. Promotion From AGP NIT Silchar Other institute Other institute Rs. 6000 to Name Name Rs. 7000 From To From To From To
b) In case any one of above four candidates is not shortlisted for CAS interview then provide screening committee report, duly signed, by all the members of screening committee.
c) In case any one of the above four candidates is not selected in the CAS interview then provide interview committee report, duly signed, by all the members of the interview committee.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/105206 The appellant has sought information regarding not shortlisting of candidates for the Post of Professor at NIT Silchar, who are working as Associate Professor at the same Institute NIT Silchar with AGP of INR 9,000/- for more than four years but less than ten years against permanent post and their services at NIT are confirmed by the Competent Authority of NIT Silchar/ MHRD Govt. of India. Give information regarding approval from MHRD, Visitor, BoG for the same.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/105536 The appellant has sought the following information in reference to RTI Reply letter No. NITS/RTI/18-19/Q-2/7/11154 dated 30/08/2018:
1. BOG Approval :
Certified copy of approval of resolutions of Advisory Committee on Faculty Recruitment (ACoFAR) by the Board of Governors (BOG) of NIT, Silchar. He has also sought following information / documents:
3(d) "All Government Institutions/Organizations will be treated as Institute of Repute"
1.1 Also provide concerned BOG Meeting No. and Agenda No. 1.2 Also provide concerned BOG Meeting No., Agenda Item No. with a certified copy of Minutes.
1.3 In case any mail/letter has been circulated to all the members of BOG by the Chairman BOG for getting approval of 'ACoFAR 3 Resolution' through mail, then provide a certified copy of that mail/letter.
1.4 Certified copies of all replies for approval of the 'ACoFAR Resolution' by all the members of Board of Governors.
2. MHRD Approval :
Certified copy of approval of resolutions of ACoFAR by the MHRD New Delhi.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/131434 Provide list of candidates not short listed for the post of Professor with AGP Rs.
10500/- in the following table Sl No. Name Department Existing Faculty/ New Applicant File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/131435 The appellant has sought the following information regarding details of decision taken at Institute level which is duly approved by MHRD, Govt. of India, against 'one time relaxation in experience' for the existing permanent faculty members who
(i) have directly joined as Associate Professors more than 4 years before at NIT Silchar
(ii) are having their Ph.D degree from IIT Level institutions.
(iii) are having more than 10 years post Ph.D experience
(iv) came to NIT Silchar from MHRD Approved NAAC "A" level of deemed to be Universities like Banasthali Vidyapeeth.
(v) came from deemed to be Universities which are more than 80 year old.
(vi) Joined the NIT Silchar, directly as an Associate Professor on the basis of experiences in the deemed to be Universities.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/131437 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copy of office order issued for circulation of ACoFAR Committee's decision on 'Institute of repute' before short listing was done by Screening Committee for the post of Professor of Mathematics at NIT Silchar.4
2. Certified copy of letter sent to MHRD, New Delhi forwarding ACoFAR decision on 'Institute of repute'.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/139383 The appellant has sought various information in respect of the constitution of the the Anti-Ragging Committee (ARC) and allocation of Incandescence Monitoring Duties from 2015-2016 to 2018-2019 at NIT, Silchar. He has also sought the BOG and MHRD approval for giving such duties to Dr. P.K. De and not giving such duties to other Associate Professors.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/144514 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Details of action taken against appellant' application dated 13/02/2019 to the Director NIT, Silchar with reference to 47th, 48th and 49th meetings of the Board of Governors of NIT, Silchar.
2. Provide information in the form of hardcopy documents duly certified by Govt. Officer, NIT, Silchar.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/144513 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Details of action taken against appellant' application dated 06/03/2019 to the Director NIT Silchar with reference to 47th, 48th and 49th meetings of the Board of Governors of NIT, Silchar.
2. Provide information in the form of hardcopy documents duly certified by Govt. Officer, NIT, Silchar.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/144511 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Details of action taken against appellant's application dated 21/02/2019 to the Director NIT Silchar with reference to 47th, 48th and 49th meetings of the Board of Governors of NIT, Silchar.
2. Provide information in the form of hardcopy documents duly certified by Govt. Officer, NIT, Silchar.
File No. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/151315 The appellant has sought the following information:
51. Details of action taken against appellant's application dated 19/02/2019 to the Director NIT Silchar with 47th, 48th and 49th meetings of the BoG.
2. Provide information in the form of hardcopy documents duly certified by Govt. Officer, NIT, Silchar.
Grounds for filing Second Appeals The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as in most of his RTI applications, the CPIO had rejected the same on the basis of an earlier order of the Commission of 25.02.2016 which had stated that repeated RTI applications cannot be entertained. In these cases too the CPIO had held that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications for personal related matters without any public interest which had forced their Section to devote all their valuable time and energy in replying to such RTI applications. He further stated that in fact, he has been harassed by the respondent organization for not short-listing him for the post of Professor, in the Department of Mathematics and his requests for knowing the reasons for not appointing him were continuously rejected and hence he had filed a separate case before the National Commission of Scheduled Castes which was transferred to the National Commission of Backward Classes in the month of December, 2019 and is pending adjudication there. Through his RTI applications, he had sought various documents lying in the custody of the respondent organization so that he can use them to defend his case before the National Commission of Backward Classes. He also stated that he is the only candidate who has been denied promotion till date and this is an intentional action on the part of the respondents as the list of all such candidates that were not short-listed alongwith him was also to be provided to him which leads him to firmly believe that he was the only person who was not short- listed for the said post and hence the desired information should be provided to him in the interest of justice as he is being harassed from the year 2012 and in a democratic country like ours, if the process of selection and appointment is not open and transparent and information is not provided to him under the RTI Act, how would he come to know whether the whole process of appointment is transparent.6
With regard to Files no. CIC/NITSC/A/2019/144514 + 144513 + 144511 + 151315, he submitted that the subject matter of the RTI applications and the issue raised therein is completely different and these RTI applications should be dealt with separately by the Commission. The CPIO, at the outset submitted that the appellant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications which revolve around the same subject matter i.e. his grievance regarding not being short-listed for the post of Professor, in the Department of Mathematics and hence his multiple RTI applications were rejected on that ground only. He further stated that whatever information was available with them, that was provided to the appellant time and again and he was also given an opportunity to inspect the relevant documents vide their letter dated 21.08.2018, which he did not avail of and hence there is no intention on their part not to provide the desired information to the appellant.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of the relevant case records including the written submissions filed by both the parties, it is noted that on one hand, the appellant is aggrieved that the desired information was not provided to him on any of his RTI applications which gave a reason to him to file many more RTI applications as was submitted by him during the hearing. On the other hand, the CPIOs present during the hearing shifted the focus of the Commission to the fact that the appellant has misused the RTI Act by filing multiple & similar RTI applications with their organisations.
After perusal of the subject matter and the issues raised by the appellant in all his RTI applications mentioned above, it is noted that the appellant has undoubtedly filed multiple RTI applications with the same organisation which more or less cover the same issue i.e. his grievance for not short-listing him for the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics Now, having perused the instant 12 Second Appeals which were listed on the same day, a close scrutiny of the nature of information sought by the Appellant in the above mentioned 12 RTI applications shows that the appellant is seeking all and every information regarding BOG approved guidelines for the short-listing of applications, the details of all such candidates who were short-listed for the said post, information about one time relaxation in experience, information regarding the office order issued for circulation of ACoFAR Committee's 7 decision on 'Institute of repute' and action taken on his various representations .
The above mentioned information sought by the appellant is indicative of the sheer volume of information sought by him and the Commission fully agrees with the submissions of the CPIO regarding the nature of these RTI Applications. This case becomes a fit illustration for the observation of the Apex Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay's case that -
"...The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties...."
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he has a genuine reason for filing the multiple RTI applications as he was the only one who was denied promotion by the respondent organization and was not short-listed for the above mentioned post nor was any material record shown to him which could have satisfied him as to why he was not short-listed and secondly that none of his RTI applications has been properly replied to by any Department which made him file more and more RTI applications. The Commission noted that even if the appellant has a justified grievance, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. All this exercise on the part of the appellant negates the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, even if the appellant was having a reasonable cause in filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the appellant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI applications.
It will not be out of place to quote verbatim the observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West- B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015].The relevant paras are extracted below:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being 8 abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of ShailSahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still.' 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' The aforesaid dicta particularly resonates with the said set of cases as the Respondent office is a vital part of the Department of Defence Production engaged in the production of warfare equipments in the area of land, sea and air systems. If the resources of this office are diverted into addressing the umpteen RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant alone, it will lead to a situation of colossal wastage of its valuable manpower and infrastructure.' All this makes it clear that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his right to Information as being absolute and unconditional and is rather resorting to misuse of this Act to settle his personal grievance against the respondent authorities. The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority and sort out his personal grievances for which other fora exist as he himself admitted during the hearing that he had filed a case before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes which has now been transferred to National Commission for Backward Castes. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the respondent organization, the NIT Silchar, and if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is undoubtedly 9 misuse and it has to be checked. He cannot use the RTI route to satisfy his personal grievance, by flooding the public authority with numerous RTIs on the same or similar issues.
Having said so, even though the available information for the File Nos. CIC/NITSC/A/2018/156193 + CIC/NITSC/A/2019/105206 + 105536 & 139383 was given to the appellant through various letters dated 21.08.2018. 03.10.2018, 30.10.2018 & 23.05.2019 and for File Nos.
CIC/NITSC/A/2019/104155 + 131434 + 131435 & 131437, the RTI application was rejected on the ground of being repetitive, covering the similar subject matter of not being short-listed for the said post, however, with regard to File No.s CIC/NITSC/A/2019/144514 + 144513, 144511 & 151315, the Commission agrees with the submissions of the appellant that the subject matter of these RTI applications is different, seeking information about the various representations filed by him on 13.02.2019, 19.02.2019, 21.02.2019 & 06.03.2019 and it is noted that no satisfactory reply was given to him as to whether or not any action was taken on these representations by them or not. Further, in all such applications where the RTI application was out-rightly rejected, the CPIO is directed to re-visit all these applications and to check if there is any additional information that can be supplied to the appellant on his various queries which is available with them in a documented form and in case there is no additional information which can be supplied to the appellant, a categorical reply on these lines should be given to him.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI applications in File No.s CIC/NITSC/A/2019/104155 + 131434 + 131435 & 131437+ 144514 + 144513, 144511 & 151315 afresh and provide an additional reply to the appellant as discussed in the preceding paras within a period of 20 days after the lockdown is lifted under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission also finds it appropriate to caution the appellant to refrain from filing repeated and similar RTI applications as it leads to harassment of the public authority as well as wastes the time and resources of the concerned departments and the Commission. In case any such repeated second appeals 10 or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine. He is advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of the RTI Act in future.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 11