Central Information Commission
Girish Basrur vs National Productivity Council on 8 October, 2021
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/NPRCL/A/2020/664503
In the matter of:
Girish Basrur
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Productivity Council (NPC),
Utpadakta Bhavan,
5-6, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 20/09/2019 CPIO replied on : 05/11/2019 First appeal filed on : 10/01/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal Filed on : 25/02/2020 Date of Hearing : 07/10/2021 Date of Decision : 07/10/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC alongwith Adv. Balasubraniam Respondent: Vijay Kumar, Deputy Director and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with regard to promotions done in NPC:
1. Promotion from DD to D II carried out in May, 2014 -
Provide the marks obtained by all the candidates who attended the interview against each of the criteria for promotion. Also provide a copy of the individual 1 score sheets and composite score sheet of the promotion interview for each candidate.
2. Promotions from DD to D II, D II to D I and D I to DDG carried out in 2019 - Provide the marks obtained by all the candidates who attended the interview against each of the criteria for promotion. Also provide a copy of the individual score sheets and composite scoring sheet of the promotion interview for each candidate.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO had incorrectly denied the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He also submitted that no FAA order has been passed till date. The appellant's representative submitted that the information sought is related to promotion/ selection process and not related to third party. To ensure transparency in the selection process he has the right to obtain information. He alleged that in the organisation, the junior gets promotion bypassing their seniors.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 05.11.2019. He further submitted that despite details of the FAA mentioned in the CPIO's reply, the appellant failed to address the first appeal to the correct authority. He also submitted that there is more than one FAA in their organisation thus the first appeal was not received.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that even though the CPIO had denied information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, however, no justification or reason was given as to why the information cannot be disclosed. The CPIO should note that under the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. Since the same was not done, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant.2
With regard to non-disposal of the First Appeal, the Commission upholds the written submissions of the CPIO wherein he has stated that since no first appeal was received, no order could be passed by the FAA.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु 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
3