Central Information Commission
B Nibudas vs Rajiv Gandhi Centre For Biotechnology on 11 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RGCFB/A/2023/634509
Shri B NIBUDAS ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2024
Date of Decision : 06.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.05.2023
PIO replied on : 23.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 01.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 23.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 15.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Can you provide post wise details of appointments made this institution from 2010 until today?
2. Can you provide the details such as name, address, post, salary, educational qualification, temporary appointment or permanent appointment those who have been appointed F since 2010?
3. Can you explain the procedure of appointments made since 2010?
4. If there has been a written test and interview for those who have been appointed since 2010, can you provide the detailed information?
5. From 2010 onwards, whether there has been a newspaper advertisement for inviting applications for the appointment, if so, please provide their copy and detailed information regarding this
6. From the appointments made since 2010, has any action been taken to dismiss the employees, if so can you provide name, position, date of appointment and date of dismissal and reason for dismissal.
7. There have been appointments on contract basis since 2010? If yes, can you provide the information about the tenure, salary, name and address of the employees, date of expiry of the tenure and current status of the post."
Page 1 The Sr. General Manager & CPIO, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology vide letter dated 23.05.2023 replied as under:-
Point No. 1 to 4:-The Information sought is as such not maintained and kept in the RGCB files. Collating these information from 2010 is quite voluminous and is not possible without disproportionately diverting the manpower resources. Point No. 5:-All vacancies in RGCB is filled only after publishing the positions in 2- 3 Newspapers for open advertisements.
Point No. 6:-No dismissals Point No. 7:-Yes, to the position of Senior Manager (Security) The tenure of contract appointments shall be one year extendable by mutual consents.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 23.06.2023 stated as under:-
"I have examined the contention and the reply provided by the CPIO- RGCB vide his letter dated 23.05.2023.
Questions (1) to (5) are for information on appointments, name. address, post, salary, educational qualifications, temporary appointments or permanent appointments of those who have been appointed in RGCB since 2010 and the copies of newspaper advertisements with the detailed information thereof. The CPIO has informed the appellant that because the information is not maintained as such, it is not feasible to collate them and furnish to the appellant.
Evidently, the information sought pertains to the last 13 years. Recruitments are resorted to as and when vacancies arise. All steps of the selection process viz issue of advertisement, screening. written/practical tests and their results thereof, the final selection list etc. are displayed in the RGCB web site every time instantly. After the selection process is complete each time and queries if any, disposed, the applications and other documents are transferred to the Records Room. Over passage of time, such records have become voluminous.
As per the RTI Act 2005, the information means such information which is recorded, stored and disseminated which the Authorities are obliged to publish in the public interest. Evidently, this includes past information also. The Public Authority is obliged to disclose such viable information. In the present application, the information sought is from the year 2010 onwards. The information as such is not maintained in RGCB. The information is scattered in various files. It is beyond the scope of the RTI Act to divert the resources of the Public Authority disproportionately to collate and collect such information from the old records and furnish them to the applicant, unless and until it is satisfied about the Public interest involved in the disclosure. The information is communicated to the concerned applicants through RGCB web site etc. and their queries are also answered. The names, qualifications, scale of pay etc. of the persons selected and appointed are already available in the RGCB web site. The procedures of recruitment are available in the RGCB web site and this may satisfy his question at (3) of his application. As per CIC guidelines, the information furnished by the applicants in their applications are personal to them and the rules of third party information applies. Such information can be disclosed to the other persons who Page 2 are not involved in the appointments only if they can convince about the larger public interest involved in their applications.
As such, I advise the appellant to prune his application to specific information, if he desires, which will be considered as per extant rules and procedures. He should also establish the public interest involved for such disclosure of the time- old records to him. He may note that as per the CIC guidelines, disclosure of recruitment related information is limited to the participated applicants only, unless other larger public interest is involved for disclosure to third parties.
As regards question (7), the information has been disclosed that RGCB undertakes contract appointment for the post of Senior Manager (Security) on yearly tenure basis. The details of the present incumbent are already available in the RGCB web site. Therefore the information furnished is full and complete. As per DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt) dated 14.08.2013, the performance etc. of employees is a matter between the employee and the employer are "personal information" the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Ms. Jaya Krishnan, CPIO Submissions:
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the written submissions Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records the CPIO is directed to send a copy of written submissions to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is further directed to send the compliance report of this order to the commission within 03 weeks from the date receipt of this order.
Keeping in the view of the case and the submissions made by the CPIO , the commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the CPIO no further intervention of the commission is required in the instant matter. Hence, with the above observation, the second appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)