Central Information Commission
Anand Kumar Sinha vs Ordnance Factory Board on 18 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/OFBKO/A/2023/113561
Anand Kumar Sinha ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Ordnance Factory
Board, Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.05.2022 FA : 03.08.2022 SA : 18.03.2023
CPIO : 22.07.2022 FAO : 28.09.2022 Hearing : 10.07.2024
Date of Decision: 16.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) As per different OFILs letters (copy enclosed as Annexure 'A' page 1 to 3) marks of the following employees who have promoted through LDCE examination of CM(NT/OTS) is mentioned below and seniority of JWMs as on 01.01.2021 as per OFB COMNET (PER/GB) letter DJSL/2021/TECH-NON TECH/PER/GB Dt. 13.12.2021 (copy enclosed as Annexure 'B' page 14 to 26) has also been shown next to the name of the officers:Page 1 of 8
Name of the Old P. No. Total Marks Rank in Date of
employee (Before LDCE of LDCE seniority of JWM after
(S/Sh/Smt) Exam)/ New P. examination JWM as on promotion
No. Which is of of 01.01.2021
CM (NT/OTS) CM(NT/OTS vide OFB letter
) No.
DJSL/DJSL/G
B dated
13.12.2021
D. Vankatesan 101648/88207 162.75 443 11.03.201
8 9
R. 101176/88207 152.00 471 11.03.201
Rajamahendra 9 9
n
R. 100865/88208 151.00 204 11.03.201
Ravichandran 3 9
S. Jayapal 8161/882084 148.50 205 11.03.201
9
R. Srinivasan 8036/882493 142.75 186 22.11.201
9
Etc.
The undersigned has got more marks (164.50) in LDCE examination held in the year 2008 for the post of Chargeman (NT/OTS) (copy enclosed as Annexure 'C' page 27), then under which rule all above mentioned CM(NT/OTS) now JWMs(NT/OTS), whose marks is less than me/undersigned, have been kept Page 2 of 8 above/senior in CM(NT/OTS) seniority and got promotion of JWM(NT/OTS) before me/undersigned (01.10.2019).
(ii) Total Marks in the LDCE Examination of CM(NT/OTS) of the undersigned as per OFIL Dehradun letter (copy enclosed as Annexure 'C' page 27) was 164.50. Rule position and copy of Noting office-note under which seniority was fixed of the undersigned among other Chargeman(NT/OTS) of same batch in which CM(NT/OTS) who had less marks in LDCE examination of CM(NT/OTS) was kept senior to me/undersigned. Please provide the details of OBC reservation given (if any) in the seniority list of CM (NT/OTS). Provide a copy of rule vide which reservation quota is allowed to the OBC candidates (if any) other than Direct Recruitment i.e. promotion.
(iii) In the CM(NT/OTS) seniority list published on 07.02.2017(copy enclosed as Annexure D' page 28 to 30)by OFBHQ [now DOO(C&S)] in the COMNET vide letter No.3265/CM(Tech & Non-Tech)/SNTY/2017/PER/NG dated 07.02.2017. seniority of the undersigned was shown at Sr. No. 403 in the seniority list, however the below mentioned CMs(now JWMs), who were Junior to the undersigned in the seniority list published on 07.02.2017 have been promoted to JWM(NT/OTS) from CM(NT/OTS) before me/undersigned. Kindly provide a copy of relevant rule vide which they have been given promotion to the post of JWM(NT/OTS) before me/undersigned despite being the senior in the seniority list, for which details given below Page 3 of 8 Sl No. Per No Name of the Date of JWM employee (S/ Sh/Smt) 403 876134 Anand Kumar 01.10.2019 Sinha 469 882078 D. Vankatesan 11.03.2019 470 882079 R. Rajamahendran 11.03.2019 457 822012 P. Saravanan 11.03.2019 447 891600 S. Ranjith 22.11.2019 Etc. Seniority List published on 07.02.2017 by OFB in COMNET
(iv) Please provide list of all CM(NT/OTS) whose marks in the LDCE examination was less than 164.50 held in the year 2008 but kept senior to me/undersigned.
(v) Please provide list of all JWM(NT/OTS) who were junior to me/undersigned as per seniority list of CM(NT/OTS) published from the year 2015 to 2019 but promoted to the post of JWM(NT/OTS) before me/undersigned (01.10.2019)
(vi) Please provide a copy of Record retention period rule as per Govt. of India, order or DOPT letter regarding to keep office-notings for fixation of promotion, mark sheet of examination of LDCE/fast track promotion, seniority position.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) Information sought in this point is clarification in nature which cannot be provided under RTI Act, 2005.Page 4 of 8
(ii) In r/o of the information sought in this point it is submitted that there is no such rule/OM issued by DOP&T for granting reservation for OBC in promotion.
(iii) In r/o information sought in this point it is submitted that JWM promotion for the year 2019 was given as per seniority list of Chargemen (T &NT) as on 01.01.2018 published on 05.01.2018. The same is available in the public domain i.e OFB Comnet (Now www.ayudh.net).
(iv) In r/o information sought in these points are not readily available in this office and preparation of document for the purpose of RTI reply is prohibited under RTI Act, 2005. However, the seniority lists referred in both these points are available in the public domain i.e OFB COMNET (Now www.ayudh.net).
(v) In r/o information sought in these points are not readily available in this office and preparation of document for the purpose of RTI reply is prohibited under RTI Act, 2005. However, the seniority lists referred in both these points are available in the public domain i.e OFB COMNET (Now www.ayudh.net).
(vi) In r/o information sought in this point regarding record retention period rule, it is available in the public domain i.e OFB COMNET (now www.ayudh.net)/DOP&T website.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.09.2022. upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.03.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Dy. Director, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 5 of 86. The appellant inter alia submitted that marks of the other candidates had not been furnished by the CPIO. He further submitted that he had sought a copy of rules or noting under which all other candidate's junior to him got promoted except him. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 22.07.2022. He further submitted that the appellant had sought marks of the other candidates (third parties) who got promoted, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. When enquired by the Commission regarding publication of marks at their website, the respondent submitted that the marks are published at their website for internal purposes only and not for the public. A written submission of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
1. The applicant has filed an RTI application dt. 30/05/2022 which was received at DoO(C&S) on 14/06/202.
2. CPIO/DoO(C&S) on receipt of the application forwarded the same to the concerned deemed PIO/PER/GB (now, Gr. B/GB of DoO(C&S)) on dt 14/06/2022 (enclosed). The same also forwarded to PIO/OFIL, Dehradun on dt.
14/06/2022(enclosed) for furnishing of information as deemed fit directly to the applicant. Pursuant to receipt receipt of the information from deemed PIO/GB vide Note no. 100/MISC/RTI(22230279)/B/Per/GB dated 21/07/2022 (enclosed), the said information was communicated to the applicant vide l. no. 22230279/Grp B/PER/RTI dated 22/07/2022 (enclosed).
3. The applicant had filed an offline 1st Appeal dt. 03/08/2022 which was received at this Directorate on 17/08/2022.
4. Since the matter falls under administrative competence of Ordnance Cable Factory, Chandigarh (OCFC), DDG/GB & FAA/DoO(C&S), vide l. dt. 09/09/2022 (enclosed) sought specific input from General Manager/OCFC in r/o Page 6 of 8 appellant. The reply to appellant of the action taken in the matter was forwarded vide l. no. 22230279/GR-A/2022/RTI dated 28/09/2022 (enclosed).
5. On receipt of subject hearing notice, forwarded the same to the deemed PIO/PER/GB (now, Gr.B/GB) dated 27/06/2024 (enclosed). In their reply, vide note dt. 02/07/2022 (enclosed), it has been informed that the seniority position of Shri Anand Kumar Sinha had been amended vide l. no. 3265/CM (Tech & Non- Tech)/SNTY/2018/GB dated 10/04/2023(enclosed) and he also granted promotion to the post of JWM(Non-Tech/OTS) notionally w.e.f. 11/03/2019 vide l. no. DJWM/RDPC/OTS/2018/Gr. B(GB) dt. 22/12/2023 (enclosed).
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided a point-wise reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 22.07.2022. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought marks of the other candidates (third parties) who got promoted, which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information.Page 7 of 8
Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 16.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
Ordnance Factory Board, 10 - A,
S.K Bose Road, Kolkata - 700001
2. Anand Kumar Sinha
Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)