Central Information Commission
Bhanwar Singh Meena vs Central Railway on 13 September, 2024
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CRAIL/A/2023/634769
Bhanwar Singh Meena .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Central Railway, Headquarters Office,
Personnel Branch, CSMT,
Mumbai - 400001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.09.2024
Date of Decision : 12.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 4
Please allow me Inspection of promotion file of 70 percent selection non safety category from group C to group B from 01.1.2015 to 15.4.2023 under section 6(1) of RTI act 2005.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.05.2023 stating as under:
You have not sought any material information under section 2(f) of RTI Act and sought inspection of files relating to 70% selection non safety category from Gr C to Gr B from 01.01.2015 to 15.04.2023. The files are voluminous and contains certain information which are Personnel information of other candidates and not in larger public interest and also exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. Hence you are advised to seek specific information under Sec 2(f) so that you can be offered inspection of documents which does not contained personal information Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.07.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Mr. Ajay Raj, APO/APIO present through video-conference.
Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that he is an employee of Respondent Public Authority appeared in a departmental exam for the post of APO, however, he apprehended that his results/marks were allegedly tampered on the instructions of some higher authority. Therefore, to clarify his doubts, he sought inspection of desired files, but it was denied by the Respondent. Later, on the advice of the Commission, he specified and clarified his claim for relief by urging the disclosure of cut off marks (marks obtained by the last selected candidate in order of merit) of all promoted SC/ST candidates non-safety category from group C to group B of last three exams held after the year 2016 be provided.Page 2 of 4
A written submission dated 02.09.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below:
"(A) Shri. Bhanwar Singh Meena vide his application bearing Registration No CRAIL/R/E/23/01069 dated 17.04.2024 under RTI Act had sought following information.
Inspection of promotion file of 70% selection non safety category from Gr C to Gr B. from 01.04.2015 to 15.04.2023 under 6(1) of RTI act 2005 (Annexure 'A').
(B) Accordingly, Shri. Bhanwar Singh Meena was replied vide this office letter dated 12.05.2023 that, "You have not sought any material information under section 2(f) of RTI Act and sought inspection of files relating to 70% selection non safety category from Gr C to Gr B from 01.01.2015 to 15.04.2023. The files are voluminous and contains certain information which are personal information of other candidates and not in larger public interest and also exempted under section 8(i)(j) of RTI Act 2005. Hence you are advised to seek specific information under Sec 2(f) so that you can be offered inspection of documents which does not contained personal information"
(Annexure'B').
(C), Shri. Bhanwar Singh Meena had preferred an appeal wherein he had mentioned that the desired information do not breach the sections of RTI act section 2(f) & 8(1)
(j) and further requested to review his RTI application.
Since the appellate Authority was fully satisfied with the reply given by CPIO vide letter dated 07.07.2023, the applicant was replied accordingly (Annexure 'C').
In this connection, it is stated that during the period 2015 to 2023 total 27 selections of Non safety category were conducted. These files contain certain information which are personal in nature of other candidates and not in larger public interest and also exempted under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Therefore, the applicant was advised to seek specific information ."
Respondent initially reiterated the contents of his reply and later agreed to intimate the marks as specified/restricted during the hearing.
Decision:
Page 3 of 4In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Respondent is directed to provide the cut off marks of selected/promoted (marks obtained by the last selected candidate in order of merit) SC/ST candidates promoted from group C to group B of last three exams held after the year 2016, free of cost to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, CSMT, Mumbai - 400001.Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)