Central Information Commission
Kush vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 25 June, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ITBPO/C/2018/119970/ITIBP
Kush ... निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Directorate General, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Indo Tibetan Border Police
Force, CGO Complex,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 10.01.2018 FA : Nil Complaint : 10.02.2018
CPIO : No reply FAO : No Order Hearing : 21.06.2019
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indo- Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, seeking information on ten points pertaining to posts allowed for married women/married males, including, inter-alia, (i) whether married women/married Page 1 of 3 male are allowed in all posts of ITBP, and (ii) which are the posts in ITBP for which women cannot apply - details with advertisements.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not respond to his RTI application.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri M. Kumar, DIG, ITBP, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 24.04.2018 that ITBP has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought by the complainant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this, the information sought cannot be provided to him under the RTI Act. Nonetheless, the FAA vide his order dated 24.04.2018 had informed the appellant that the information sought by him is contained in the Recruitment Rules of ITBP and the same are available on the website of the department.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, finds no grounds to interfere with the order of the FAA dated 24.04.2018. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.Page 2 of 3
6. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 24.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Block-2, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Block-2, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003.
Shri Kush, Page 3 of 3