Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Kataria vs Centre For Cultural Resources And ... on 2 April, 2026
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174
Vinod Kumar Kataria ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Centre for Cultural
Resources & Training-(CCRT) ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
(Ministry of Culture), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 26.06.2023 FA : Not on record Complaint : 27.04.2025
CPIO : 03.07.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 05.03.2026
Date of Decision: 30.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(a) Provide the certified copy of the minutes of the 47th meeting of the CCRT Society held on 26.11.2022 (Saturday).
(b) Provide the certified copy of details of members of the 47th meeting of the CCRT Society with name, designation and address who attended the meeting at CCRT, New Delhi on 26.11.2022 and took the decision of extension of one year Page 1 of 12 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 after date of superannuation on retirement for Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director, CCRT.
(c) Provide the certified copy of extension order of Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist as Director CCRT issued for one year after the date of superannuation.
(d) Provide the certified copy of 2nd MACP order issued to Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director, CCRT in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4 (as per 6th CPC) or Level-13 (as per 7th CPC).
(e) Provide the certified copy of details of arrear given to Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director, CCRT on grant of 2nd MACP in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4 (as per 6th CPC) or Level-13 (as per 7th CPC)...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"यह प आपके ारा सीसीआरटी कायालय म िदनां क 30 जून, 2023 को आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत जानकारी ा करने के िलए आरटीआई आवेदन के संदभ म है।
आपसे अनुरोध है िक अपना वैध फोटो पहचान प दान कर तािक अपेि त जानकारी आपको भेजी जा सके।"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 27.04.2024.
4. PIO, CCRT furnished reply dated 08.08.2023 as under:
"..Please refer to your RTI application dated 26-06-2023 received on 30-06-2023 in CCRT seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005. The para wise information/documents sought by you has been examined in CCRT. The following are the reply to various paras of the RTI application:-Page 2 of 12
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174
a) Provide the certified copy of the minutes of the 47th meeting of the CCRT Society held on 26.11.2022 (Saturday).
Ans. Third Party information cannot be provided as it is protected under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
b) Provide the certified copy of details of members of the 47th meeting of the CCRT Society with name, designation, address, contact number and e-mail ID who attended the meeting at CCRT, New Delhi on 26.11.2022 and took the decision on extension of one year after the date of superannuation retirement for Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director, CCRT. Ans. Third Party information cannot be provided as it is protected under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
c) Provide the certified copy of noting portion and extension order of Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist as Director CCRT issued for one year after the date of superannuation retirement.
Ans. Third Party information cannot be provided as it is protected under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
(d) Provide the certified copy of 2nd MACP order issued to Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director, CCRT in the grade pay of Rs.8700/-in PB-4 (as per 6th CPC) or Level-13 (as per 7th CIPC).
Ans. Third Party information cannot be provided as it is protected under section 8(1) (1) of RTI Act 2005.
(e) Provide the certified copy of details of arrear given to Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director, CCRT on grant of 2nd MACP in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4 (as per 6th CPC) or Level-13 (as per 7th CPC). Ans. Third Party information cannot be provided as it is protected under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
Page 3 of 12CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 (1) Provide the certified copy of details of tenure of Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist as Section Officer (Programme & Planning) in CCRT and appointment order of Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist as Section Officer (Programme & Planning) Ans. Third Party information cannot be provided as it is protected under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
(g) Provide the certified copy of Recruitment Rule of Section Officer (Programme & Planning) of CCRT Ans. The information is available on the CCRT website i.e. www.certindia.gov.in.."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant : Present in person along with Shri Ashok Kumar.
Respondent: Dr. Rahul Kumar, Dy. Director, CCRT, - participated in the hearing.
5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the relevant information ha snot been provided to him till date. He further stated that PIO in his reply had sought for valid ID photo which is violation of provisions of Section 6 of the RTI Act. He reiterated the averments made in his written submission dated 01.03.2026. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..2. That fact of corrupt practices and wilful misuse of public office by CCRT officials came out in light in Preliminary Enquiry conducted on the direction of Hon'ble Lokpal of India and from the Audit Report of DGACR.
(a) Shri Surender Kaul, D.G./Director did not have the essential qualification at the time of his appointment to the post of D.G./Director and copy of the file noting, and correspondence portion related to his appointment to the post of DG/Director is not available. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).Page 4 of 12
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174
(b) Shri G.C. Joshi did not have the essential qualification at the time of his appointment to the post of Dy Director/Director. He stands superannuated from the service. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(c) Mr. S.B. Verma did not have the essential qualifications at the time of his appointment to the post of Video Editor on 21.02.1995, he was simply Intermediate (12th Class). However, the selection committee in its meeting held on 03.02.1995 recommended Mr. S.B Verma for appointment for the post of Video Editor. He stands superannuated from the service on 31.01.2026 in PB-3 15600-39100 GP-7600). (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(d) Rishi Kumar Vashist appointment in CCRT, from which organization he was called for interview to the post of DD (Publication) is not known to CCRT but he was appointed direct recruitment appointee in CCRT with having the essential qualification. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India)
(c) CCRT accepted that CCRT is not member registered with asry Pension Trust or Pension Regulatory Authority, Govt. of India but giving pension as per the direction of Ministry of Culture.
(1) CCRT accepted in Audit that CCRT had converted CPF Scheme into GPF Scheme as per its own whims and fancies without following the due process as per Las
(g) Advance Increment to Y Chandersekhar. CCRT accepted that Mr. Y Chandra Sekhar was on a deputation from A.P. Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad. He was absorbed in CCRT on 01.01.2010 and was given five advance increments as per Rule 22 of CCRT Byelawa. It is pertinent to mention that the New Pension Scheme Page 5 of 12 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 (in short NPS) was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004 vide the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) notification No 5/7/2003 PR dated 22/12/2003, whereas he was paid pension after retirement by CCRT as per its own whims and fancies in Old Pension Scheme (in short OPS). Para 2 Audit remarks in the absence of the Ministry of Culture- approved Service Bye Laws of CCRT for the yeur 1987, audit couldn't ascertain whether the grant of five advance incremems granted to Sh Y Chandra Sekhar aligns with approved Service bye laws. It is pertinem to mention that Rule 22 of CCRT Byelaws says that advance increments in the case of direct recruits to any category of posts, the Executive Committee Chairman may grant up to five advance increments on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Here CCRT had violated its own Service Byelaws Rule-22
(h) With regard to Shri Yashpal Rangi, as per CCRT reply the presence of Shri Yashpal Raurs in the court is not in the knowledge of CCRT and hence CCRT cannot comment on the same. It is pertinent to mention that statement is to sort from CCRT with whose approval CCRT has paid the huge amount of fees in lakhs to private counsel Sh. Yashpal Rangi from public fund.
(1) It is admitted by CCRT that Mr. Rajesh Bhatnagar Ex-DD (Fin) was retired on 31.07.2020 and his stal period of service in terms of extension reemployment is exccoding the limit of 2 years, his further extension beyond 2 years is violation of rule 17(m) of service bye laws for which CCRT has given relaxation under Rule-64 service bye laws for extension upto 31.01.2024 (Total 13 Years (16 Months). Here CCRT had openly violated FR-56 (d) anl its own Service Bye Law @ It is admitted by CCRT that Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director was retired on superannuation on 31.01.2023 and the extension of Mr. Page 6 of 12 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 Vashist was done as per Rule 17(ii) and Rule 64 of the Service Bye-laws of CCRT. Here CCRT had openly violated FR-56 (d). Till date on temporary basis the post of Director CCRT since 01.02.2024 is run by Mr. Rajeev Kunar as Director CCRT un ad-hoc hasis.
It is admitted by CCRT that De Rahul Kumar gave technical resignation on 01.07.2019. It is a fact that in his relieving order no mention of the lien by CCRT Office has been done but subsequently Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director CCRT issued him an office order. No CCRT/1102/01/2010/24A dated 01.10.2019 on back date for keeping his lien to the post of Field Officer for a period of two years. Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director CCRT issued him a letter CCRT/1011/02/2021 dated 25-11-2019 stating that Dr. Rahaul Kumar is required so join as Field Officer in CCRT before joining as Deputy Director (General). His joining in CCRT as Deputy Director (General) will be effective after he joins as Field Officer. He was given promotion of Deputy Director (General) in Composite Method under promotion. It is pertinent to mention that record is to be asked from R-8 regarding his joining as Field Officer in CCRT. Para 4 Audit remarks Mr. Rahul Kumar, currently serving as Deputy Director at CCRT, was relieved from CCRT on July 4,2019, to join IGNCA after securing the position of Research Officer. Notably, there is no documentation of a lien entry in his service record, despite Mr. Rahul Kumar being granted a lien according to order no CCRT/11012/0l/2010/24A dated 01.10.2019. The same may be reviewed at the level of competent authority.
3. That fact of corrupt practices and wilful misuse of public office by CCRT officials came out in light in illegal recruitment of Field Officer post.
Page 7 of 12CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174
(a) Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director, CCRT had published the advertisement in Employment News on 19-06-2021 (i.e. Saturday) for appointment to Eight (08) posts of Field Officer, Group "B" in Pay Matrix Level 7 (Rs.44,900-1,42,400) by Direct Recruitment with All India Service Liability.
(b) Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director, CCRT without issue of any corrigendum of cancellation again published the advertisement in Employment News on 21.01.2023 and invites applications to fill up the Nine (9) posts of Field Officers, Group 'B' Level-7, in pay matrix Rs. 44900- 142400/- as per 7 CPC on Direct Recruitment and Promotion at CCRT, New Delhi.
(c) After a gap of more than one-year Mr. K Sankar Lingam Ganesh (R-
12) uploaded the list of provisionally shortlisted and not shortlisted applicants on 28.03.2024 in CCRT website. The list of candidates not shortlisted for FO post, Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.19); Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.58) and Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.113).
(d) CCRT officials had formed second Scrutiny Committee without any corrigendum as per its own whims and fancies without any justification placed the applicants/candidates who were not shortlisted for the post of Field Officer by the first Scrutiny Committee in shortlisted applicants/candidates category, the details was uploaded in the CCRT website in September 2024. List of candidates shortlisted for FO- Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.19); Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.58) and Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.113) thereafter result of FO was uploaded in the CCRT website where the candidates not selected by the first scrutiny committee were declared successful their names were Mr. Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.4, in Un-reserved Category); Mr. Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.1, in Un-reserved Category) and Ms. Julesha Siddharth Wankhade Page 8 of 12 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 (S.No.1, in SC Category). Here CCRT has violated Article 309, DoPT OM No. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006 and DoPT OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020.
(e) It is submitted that DoPT OM No. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006 clarified in the light of a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 3595- 3612/1999 etc. in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and others has reiterated that any public appointment has to be in terms of the Constitutional scheme in para 2 that if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.
(f) It is submitted that DoPT OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020 clarified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgement dated 10.04.2006 in case of Uma Devi that (a) para 2(ii) filling of vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage. or other considerations (b) para 2(iv) Regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 & 309 of the Constitution of India, or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
4. It is submitted that my above said Appeals/Complaints are self- explanatory to proof that Dr. Rahul Kumar Deputy Director & CPIO CCRT is habitual in offending Section 6(2); Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that to cover the corrupt practices of CCRT and wilful misuse of public office where he himself directly or indirectly involves, wilfully misusing the Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is humbly requested before the Hon'ble CIC to call the record from CCRT since November 2019 to till date where Dr. Rahul Kumar Deputy Director & CPIO CCRT, had/have given the reply against RTI Page 9 of 12 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 applications filed in CCRT under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which will clear his mindset against corrupt practice and wilful misuse of public office..."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been provided to the Complainant. He placed on record a reply dated 08.08.2023 and same was also provided to the Complainant during course of proceedings.
Decision:
7. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
8. Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v.
State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."Page 10 of 12
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
9. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
10. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Page 11 of 12 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/619174 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO under RTI, Deputy Director & CPIO, Centre for Cultural Resources & Training-(CCRT) (Ministry of Culture), Plot No.-15-A, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
2 Vinod Kumar Kataria Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)