Central Information Commission
V Balachandran vs Ordnance Factory Board on 15 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :CIC/OFBKO/C/2018
2018/152958 +
CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/100224
V Balachandran .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
....अपीलकता
अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Ordnance Factory,
MoD, Vigilance Section, Ordnance Factory,
Tiruchirapalli,
Tamilnadu - 620016. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/07/2018
CPIO replied on : 11/08/2018
First appeal filed on : 12/09/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 13/10/2018
Complaint dated : 24/08/2018
Second Appeal dated : 07/12/2018
Date of Hearing : 18/06/2020
Date of Decision : 18/06/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant sought information through 8 points regarding various details of compassionate appointment appointments made in Ordnance Factory, Tiruchirapally since the year 2014.2014 1
Grounds for the Complaint/Second /Second Appeal:
Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Present on phone.
Respondent: C.D. Rajaram, Addl.GM & CPIO, Ordnance Factory, Tiruchirapalli present through VC.
Complainant/Appellant stated that he is primarily aggrieved with the denial of information on paras 6,7 and 8 of the RTI Application under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and urged that his written ritten submission dated 26.03.2020 may be taken on record, wherein he has justified the larger larger public interest subsisting in the disclosure of all the details sought in the aforesaid paras.
Complainant/Appellant in his written submission has elaborately emphasized on the scheme cheme of compassionate appointment being a social welfare measure. That, since vacancies for filling up the Compassionate Appointment is taken from the Direct Recruitment Quota (5%), the process adopted for the same is of immense significance. That, as opposed to the open recruitment process for Direct Recruitment, Compassionate sionate Appointment Scheme is carried out directly by the local authorities in the local units and therefore the process is susceptible to 'graft, graft, corruption, inefficiency, sloth and the frustrating complexities of red tape etc.either because of poor administrative administrative control or because of malafied intention, which cannot be construed by the ignorant common people normally.'Complainant/Appellant Complainant/Appellant has further alleged that in n Ordnance Factory, Trichy, the Compassionate Appointment cases were dealt at the whims of the Officers concerned, ignoring the Orders/Directives/Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence and DoP&T. That, from a perusal of the documents provided so far by the CPIO, it is learnt that since the year 2014 the selection process has been carried out without applying the mandates as ordered and many eligible candidates were neglected and some ineligible, influential influen candidates were granted appointment. When this was challenged by the affected parties, no proper reply was given either by thethe Ordnance Factory, Trichy or by the Ordnance Factory Board and hence some litigation was initiated. He further referred to an order vide MoD ID No. 19(3)/2009-D(Lab) 19(3)/2009 dated 08.12.2010,, which requires publication of the Relative Merit Points scored by the ccandidates andidates waiting for 2 File No :CIC/OFBKO/C/2018 2018/152958 + CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/100224 Compassionate Appointment, with all details, based on the eight attributes as laid down by the MoD vide its ID NO. 19(2)/2009-D(Lab) 19(2)/2009 dated 09.01.20 018. But it has been alleged that the Ordnance Factory, Trichy has not disclosed the values of the attributes in their score sheets, due to which one cannot cross check awarded marks and ascertain the real marks. 'ForFor example; under the column "Pension / Family Pension" they granted certain Marks but not disclosed the amount of Pension. Here, if the amount of Pension Pension is known then only the Marks granted can be ascertained from the slabs, whether it is correct or not.....That, not. these Relative Merit Points are the measure to define the penury condition of the candidates waiting for Compassionate Appointment and hence even even a loss of single mark may keep the eligible candidate deep in to misery until he or she gain a job offer.'Complainant/Appellant Complainant/Appellant has asserted that even as other establishments under MoD are following the averred guidelines, Ordnance Factory, Trichy is alone being discreet about the attributes for which they granted marks and when the same is ought under RTI Act, CPIO took refuge of the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j). That, the undue stress on opacity is only leading him to believe that there indeed has been favoritism involved ed in the compassionate appointments effectuated by Ordnance Factory, Trichy. Trichy Lastly, Complainant/Appellant has brought the attention of the bench to a directive issued by a coordinate bench of the Commission in CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW on 25.03.2019, for voluntary CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW-BJ oluntary disclosure of the details of Compassionate Appointments Appointments by all public authorities, based on which relevant orders were issued by DoPT & MoD, which the Respondent office has failed to implement. In light of these submissions, Complainant/Appellant has prayed for directions to provide the information in larger public interest and sought action against against the delayed provision of information as well as denial of part information.
CPIO submitted at the outset that information provided vide reply dated 05.9.2018 is inclusive of the information sought at para 6 of the RTI Application and that information on has been denied only on paras 7 & 8.
Complainant/Appellant interjected to state that he has not received the information on para 6 of the RTI Application, contrary to the CPIO's claim.
3CPIO also referred to his written submissions dated 12.06.2020 sent prior to the hearing wherein, firstly, CPIO has justified the delay in providing the information by stating that it was on account of collection of the data from different agencies (such as the Labour Welfare Office, Screening Committee, Administration Administratio )involved in the compassionate appointment process as the same pertained to the period since 2014. That, although all efforts were being made to provide the information within 30 days of receipt of RTI Application Application,, yet, when the same did not seem feasible, e, an interim reply was provided to the Complainant/Appellant vide letter dated 11.08.2018 and eventually information was provided on 05.09.2018,, while the instant Complaint was filed on 24.08.2018. That, upon close scrutiny of the relevant documents, it was was found that the forms submitted by the candidates and report of the Labour Officer for compassionate appointment, which has been sought in the averred paras, contain personal information of the candidates and their family details, details therefore it was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. CPIO further submitted that after receipt of the information, Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal on 12.09.2018, which was adequately disposed off by the FAA on 13.10.2018, yet, a Second Appeal has been filed by the Complainant/Appellant levelling baseless allegations against the Respondent office, which is pending for disposal with the Commission.
Decision Commission based on the perusal of facts on record finds no reason to intervene with the justification for delay in providing the eventual information submitted by the CPIO as the information sought is indeed elaborate and voluminous. Moreover, the material on record does not suggest any malafide or deliberate intention on the part of the CPIO in having caused the delay.
In view of the foregoing, the grounds for which the instant Complaint was originally filed bears no merit at this stage stage.. However, Howev since Complainant/Appellant has added a prayer to provide the information and argued on the aspect of larger public interest etc. and since CPIO has brought to the attention of the Commission that a corresponding Second Appeal is also pending on the subject, Commission deems it fit to decide the said Second Appeal on its merits along with the instant case to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
In furtherance of the aforesaid, registry attached with this bench has gathered that File No. CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/100224 CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/ is the Second Appeal corresponding to the instant Complaint.
4File No :CIC/OFBKO/C/2018 2018/152958 + CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/100224 Now, a perusal of the grounds of Appeal reveal that by and large, the contentions contained in the written submission of the Complainant/Appellant dated 26.03.2020 discussed above are a repetition of the said grounds. However, Commission notes that in the averred grounds of Second Appeal, Complainant/Appellant has also expressed his dissatisfaction with the reply received on paras 1,3,5-BB of the RTI Application, while for para 6, he has admitted to the receipt of information but not in the format he had sought for. for He has argued that- "Whatever the information the PIO given in his Annexure "C", is not containing the details pertaining to parameters and attributes of the candidates viz Family Pension Terminal Benefits,, Monthly Income, Income from the property prope and value of the immovable property etc. Ministry of Defence efence vide ID No. 1912120t7-D(Lab), D(Lab), dated 09 09-01-2018, 2018, based on the revised 7th CPC benefits, had developed a 100 point weightage system containing various Parameters / Attributes to decide the most deserving candidates amongst the large number of applicants ts sought for appointment under Compassionate Appointment Scheme."
Scheme.
Commission has considered the grounds of Appeal mentioned for paras 1,3,5-B 1,3,5 of the RTI Application and is inclined to accept the contentions for only paras 3 and 5-B, which is that CPIO hass not provided specific reply or information. On para 3, CPIO was required to provide the dates and minutes of meetings referred therein.
therein Similarly, for para 5-B,, CPIO was required to provide the specific number of meetings along with the dates on which the committee assembled.. In both paras, CPIO has merely informed that regular meetings were conducted and record of discussion was created on only certain dates, the said reply is rather evasive and inadequate. On para 1 of the RTI Application, Complainant/Appellant /Appellant has questioned the merits of the factual position informed by the CPIO that the Ordnance Factory Board order regarding compassionate appointments has not been complied with the management of Respondent office. Commission cannot adjudicate on the factual merits of the information provided on para 1 of the RTI Application as the same is outside the ambit of RTI Act.
As regards, para 6 of the RTI Application, during the hearing proceedings, Complainant/Appellant stated that he has not received the information while in the grounds of corresponding Second Appeal as discussed above, he has stated that the information received is not in the format sought by him.
5Further, forparas 7 andd 8 of the RTI Application, Commission accedes to the submission of the CPIO that disclosure of the information sought there in will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of other individuals as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, Commission is inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant/Appellant that the information sought in the RTI Application pertains to a larger public interest and is convinced by the welfare measure undertaken by him in pursuit of ensuring that the process of compassionate appointments is without malfeasance and detriment to the deserving candidates. This observation is further drawn from the decision of a coordinate bench of the Commission in the matter of Sandeep Patil Vs. CPIO Under Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Public and Pensions Pensions Department of Personnel & Training &Ors.(File No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW-BJ) CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW dated 25.03.2019 as brought out by the Complainant/Appellant, wherein following fo was held in respect of compassionate appointments:
appointments "The The Commission at the outset observed that that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application ought to have been provided keeping in view the larger public interest involved in the matter. It was felt that several pertinent issues regarding discrepancy in matters of compassionate compassionate appointment were raised by the Appellant in his Second Appeal which demanded appropriate action by the Public Authority."
Authority.
XXX "The Commission further observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.
norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI R Act. The Commission felt that details on compassionate appointment which were in a waiting list of all the Ministries and autonomous institutions under the Government of India and policy/directives relating to compassionate appointment, etc. should be ssuo uo motu uploaded on their website to facilitate access to information and efficaciousness of the RTI Act."6
File No :CIC/OFBKO/C/2018 2018/152958 + CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/100224 Adverting to the aforesaid discussion, Commission is ordering disclosure of available and relevant information on paras 3, 5-B, 7 & 8 of the RTI Application.
Application Further, it is noted that, on para 6 of the RTI Application, since Complainant/Appellant Appellant has sought information in a particular format for only first 20 candidates, non-receipt receipt of which has been argued in the grounds of Second Appeal, Commission observes that in light of the larger public interest subsisting in the matter, CPIO shall collate the available information in the format sought by the Complainant/Appellant..
CPIO is hereby directed to provide available, relevant and specific information, information in the form it is sought in n paras 3, 5-B, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI Application to the Complainant/Appellant free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The Complaint and Appeal are disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha (िद काश िस ा) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ 26106140/ [email protected] हरो साद सेन,उप-पं जीयक िदनां क / Date 7