Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rakesh Kumar Yadav vs Union Bank Of India on 16 December, 2021

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                  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/UBIND/C/2019/642255

Rakesh Kumar Yadav                                      ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank of India
Nariman Point, Mumbai                                   ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 16.03.2019             FA     : Nil                 Complaint : Nil

CPIO : 16.04.2019            FAO : No Order               Hearing   : 10.11.2021


                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                      ORDER

(16.12.2021)

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated Nil due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 16.03.2019 are as under:-

 Take necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 16.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai, seeking following information:

 "As final list of all finally selected candidates with their respective names and roll number already published on Union Bank of India website publically in the month of June or July 2018 and going forward already provisional of letter issued through postal service and online email also in which already mentioned there that finally selected candidates needs to report on 16.07.2018 for medical and other required formalities and also formally it was given joining date 01.08.2018 as per provisional offer letter issued so its completely shows that recruitment process has been closed with all procedure required and joining also done within these approx seven or eight months from the date of finally selected candidates list published on banks website

(i) Kindly provide number of candidates finally joined the bank in reference to each month in between or from 01.08.2018 to 16.03.2019 to their respective allocated zone or region and also provide us total number of candidates denied to join the bank or cancelled by bank to join the bank in each months between 01.08.2018 to 16.03.2018 i.e. information for August 2018, September 2018, October 2018, November 2018, December 2018, January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 if any, here period is specific and it has no effect of whether recruitment is still going on or not because periods are not for infinity periods but bound to particular months from August 2018 to March 2019 only."

The CPIO vide letter dated 16.04.2019 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated Nil. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a complaint dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.04.2019 stated that the information sought by the complainant was not available in the manner sought by the complainant. Collection and compilation of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank and hence the CPIO expressed their inability to provide the same u/s 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri A K Singh, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant had requested for the number of candidates who joined or denied to join the bank in specific periods in different regions or zones. However, the information was neither maintained nor classified in the manner sought by the complainant. The compilation of the information would amount to carrying out such exercise that would disproportionately exhaust the resources which was exempted under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the information could not be furnished to the complainant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 16.04.2019. Further, in the absence of the complainant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 16.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA UNION BANK BHAWAN, 14TH FLOOR, 239 VIDHAN BHAWAN, MARG, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400021 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAWAN, 14TH FLOOR, 239 VIDHAN BHAWAN, MARG, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400 021 RAKESH KUMAR YADAV Page 4 of 4