Central Information Commission
Smt.Vaishali Sarang vs Mumbai Port Trust on 31 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000081
Dated, the 31st March, 2010
Appellant : Smt.Vaishali Sarang
Respondents : Mumbai Port Trust
Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 04.02.2010, this second- appeal came up for hearing on 16.03.2010 through videoconferencing (VC). Appellant sought exemption from personal appearance, which was granted to her. Respondents ― represented by Shri A.M. Darole, Deputy Secretary & CPIO ― were present at NIC VC facility at Mumbai. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Making their initial submission, respondents, through the CPIO, Shri Darole, stated that the RTI-application of the appellant dated 01.09.2008 was related to certain matters which were over 14 years' old. The main-purpose for which she has been asking for this and several other items of information ― she has filed over 16 RTI- applications in the same matter ― is to establish her claim to seniority over another colleague of hers.
3. On several occasions, she was called upon to inspect the records and documents relating to her more-or-less-similar queries made through multiple RTI-applications, but she failed to turn-up for inspection.
4. Respondents pointed out that each one of her queries contained in her RTI-application dated 01.09.2008 has been replied to by the CPIO through replies dated 26.09.2008 and 01.10.2008 and through Appellate Authority's decision dated 25.03.2009.
5. It is seen that the appellant has furnished, along with her grounds of appeal, a tabular statement about her queries, the replies of the CPIO, the decision of the Appellate Authority and her own reasons as to why those replies were not in conformity with the text of queries.
6. These points are discussed below:-
Query at Sl.No.1: "I request you to kindly give me copy of contemporary periodical reports submitted by C.E.'s deptt. wherein the backlog reservation in physically handicapped category has been AT-31032010-08.doc Page 1 of 6 shown with categories earmarked therefore ending on 31.12.1994, 30.06.1995, 31.12.1995 and 30.06.1996 (along with CE's forwarding letters) Ref. No. and date."
7. CPIO, in his reply, informed appellant that these reports were not traceable. Appellate Authority upheld the communication of the CPIO as adequate.
8. Appellant has stated that this information was incorrect because, according to her, a recruitment drive was conducted for physically handicapped persons, to clear the backlog vacancies. She believes that by claiming that the records have been destroyed, respondents have failed to inform her the actual position of action as regards these backlogs in the years 1995 and 1996.
Decision:
9. It is seen that appellant has not given any authentic reference on the basis of which the information sought by her could have been traced by the respondents. Her vague reference to special drive for clearing backlog of appointments to vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons in respect of a matter which is 14 years' old, does not constitute sufficient reference on the basis of which the records could have been traced. It was, nevertheless, noted that in the reply by the Services Department dated 26.02.2008 to appellant's another RTI-application dated 31.01.2008, she was informed the details of the department-wise backlog vacancies for handicapped employees. From this, it follows that while information about backlog vacancies for the handicapped employees for the year 1996 ― this was the year when the appellant was first appointed to the post in the public authority ― was available with the Services Department for the five wings of the public authority, no such information was available with the Civil Engineering Department regarding the backlog vacancies for handicapped since the year 1996 and earlier, i.e. 1994 and 1995 pertaining to the latter department. This has been informed to the appellant.
10. In view of the categorical statement of the respondents that the records are not traceable, no responsibility for disclosure can be cast on them.
Query at Sl.No.2(a): "Rule No. and copy of rules and regulations framed by MbPT along with vernacular translations of the same which AT-31032010-08.doc Page 2 of 6 permits such appointment of physically handicapped person against future reservation for physically handicapped under RSP regulations."
11. CPIO provided to the appellant, what is described as, Clause No.13 of MbPT Employees (RSP) Regulations, 1977, but the appellant is not satisfied. She has stated that Clause No.13A dealt-with orders issued by the central government as regards SC/ST and OBC whereas 13B dealt-with Ex-servicemen and dependents of those killed in action. She claims that this information did not correspond to her query.
12. Respondents have stated that the documents provided to the appellant through their response for this item of query no-doubt did not relate specifically to filling-up of backlog vacancies for handicapped persons, but to other categories as referred by the appellant. These were provided to the appellant as some form of an Aide Memoire about the policy relating to filling-up of backlog reserved vacancies for various categories of employees. As regards filling-up of the vacancies for physically handicapped through reservation, orders of the government were adopted by the public authority from time to time. Presently, there was 3% reservation for physically handicapped for Direct Recruitment as well as in promotional posts. A copy of the Ministry's O.M. dated 20.04.2006 comprising the guidelines for the reservation of posts for persons with disabilities (1996) was also provided by the respondents to the appellant.
13. Another copy of a government Regulation No.13 MBPT (RSP), 1977 was also provided to the appellant to clarify the public authority's position regarding handicapped persons' reservations. Respondents have emphasized that there was no provision for future reservation for physically handicapped persons as appellant has requested through her RTI-application.
Decision:
14. What is obvious from these clarifications given by the respondents is that the specific information requested by the appellant did not exist and, as such, its disclosure could not be authorized.
Query at Sl.No.2(b): "Competent authority as per RSP regulation for sanctioning such appointment against future reservation and copy of such sanction and copy of such rule which empowered appointment of Kum.N.Kala.
AT-31032010-08.doc Page 3 of 6
15. Appellant has pointed out that whereas she had requested for a copy of any order or notification which authorized the public authority to make appointments against "future vacancies", what she was provided was a copy of Clause No.5 of MbPT Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1976, which, according to the appellant, was irrelevant, as it dealt-with the competent authority's powers to make appointments against "present vacancy".
16. Respondents, in their reply, had stated that MBPT Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1976, which vested the competent authority with the power to make appointments against vacancies, contained no provision regarding appointments against "future vacancies".
17. Respondents claimed that this was all that they could inform the appellant on the basis of the records they held and they were not obliged to tell her whether or not the competent authority had the power to make appointments against future vacancies.
Decision:
18. Respondents' contention is well within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as interpreted from time to time in the decisions of the Commission. Respondents are obliged to provide to the appellant only that information which they 'hold'. They are not obliged to explain to her why and how they did not possess a certain power -- in this case the power to make appointments against future vacancies.
19. No obligation to disclose further information can be cast on the respondents.
Query at Sl.No.2(d): "Copy of Central Govts. Directives applicable for reservation for physically handicapped person as on 01.01.1996 and 01.05.1996 which empowers MbPT administration for appointment of physically handicapped against future reservation for physically handicapped."
20. It is the appellant's contention that the century-old public authority (i.e. the Mumbai Port Trust) must be following certain codified/standard procedures for centralized recruitment. She was wanting to receive a copy of such codified rules of procedure. According to her, this information fell under suo-motu declaration under RTI Act.
AT-31032010-08.doc Page 4 of 6 Decision:
21. Respondents have rightly pointed out that they were not in a position to answer appellant's query as to the source of the power of the public authority to make appointments against what she has described as "future vacancies", because no such document existed. As the request is for a non-existent information, its disclosure cannot be authorized.
Query at Sl.No.3: "Copy of extract of departmental manual of Secretary / Manager (SOM) department adopted by respective department and which was in force in January 1996 detailing therein the procedure to be adopted right from identification of vacancies to absorption of employee in respective department while conducting centralized recruitment for any categories."
22. Respondents' informed appellant that, in the year 1996 January, there were no department manual in force for it to be now provided to the appellant in response to her query. They were not in a position to explain to her about the sources of the public authority's power for appointments, beyond what was already stated to her in replies to other queries.
Decision:
23. As the information itself is non-existent, it cannot be authorized to be disclosed.
Query at Sl.No.4: "Copy of rules and regulations under RSP or guidelines issued by competent authority such as Staff Selection Committee or circular by Manager (SOM) / Secretary or extract of authentic departmental manual adopted by Manager (SOM) / Secretary, which is the determining criteria on the basis of which posting (distribution) of more than one selected candidates amongst more than one department is decided and executed in the centralized recruitment system, carried out by Manager (SOM) / Secretary department."
24. Respondents informed the appellant that "no such circulars in respect of determining criteria for posting of selected candidates to more than one department had been issued by the Services Department. She was further informed that as regards extracts of department manual, the same is available on Internet (Executive Information Systems) of Mumbai Port Trust."
AT-31032010-08.doc Page 5 of 6 Decision:
25. As the requested information does not exist, it is not possible to authorize its disclosure.
26. It was also pointed out on behalf of the respondents that they were willing to provide to the appellant inspection of all records and documents held by them which have had a bearing on the queries she has listed in her RTI-application. Appellant, however, chose not to avail of the offer. Respondents have pointed out that appellant was using the RTI-route to settle a grievance, rather than to elicit information, otherwise, she would have had no objection to inspect the records and documents offered to her by the CPIO. According to the respondents, appellant's way was nothing more than forum hunting, which must be emphatically discouraged. Through her actions, she was wasting the public authority's time and money in a somewhat unscrupulous manner.
27. The concerns of the public authority are noted. It is open to them to call up the appellant for counseling and suitably advise her.
28. The appeal disposed of with the above directions.
29. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-31032010-08.doc Page 6 of 6