Central Information Commission
Usha Kumari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 August, 2020
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/BSNLD/A/2018/633254
In the matter of:
Usha Kumari
... Appellant
VS
JT.GM(Personnel) & CPIO,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Office of the GM(Personnel) BSNL Corporate Office,
4TH Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 14/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 24/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 24/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 19/09/2018 Second appeal filed on : 09/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 19/08/2020 Date of Decision : 19/08/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Not present
Respondent: Shri Onkar Nath, DGM(Pers) & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information.
1. Provide the copy of recruitment rule or order based on which BSNL carried out promotions from SDE to DE by converting SDE vacancies to DE vacancies.
2. Provide the copy of recruitment rule or order based on which promotions of all other cadres have taken place in June, 2018 & July, 2018 by converting the posts.1
Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO has denied providing the information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead her case despite the fact that she was duly informed about the audio hearings and service of valid hearing notice on 03.08.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED596608496IN during the hearing also, several attempts were made to connect to the appellant but the appellant failed to respond to the calls. Under such circumstances, the Commission will decide the case based on the contentions raised by the appellant in her second appeal memo and on the merits of the case.
The appellant in her second appeal memo had submitted that she had asked information about the recruitment rules and regulations on the basis of which the promotions are done and there is nothing in this information which comes under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Hence, the denial of the information u/s 8 of the RTI Act by the FAA is wrong.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given by the FAA vide his order dated 19.09.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant had sought very simple information i.e. a copy of recruitment rule or order based on which BSNL carried out promotions from SDE to DE by converting SDE vacancies to DE vacancies and a copy of recruitment rule or order based on which promotions of all other cadres have taken place in June, 2018 & July, 2018 by converting the posts. Initially the CPIO had given some information while stating that all the promotions in the BSNL are made as per the relevant Recruitment Rules (RR). Conversion of posts, if any, are made as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India. However, the copies of relevant recruitment rules or guidelines issued by the Government of India as referred to by the CPIO were not given to the appellant. Thereafter, the FAA had denied to disclose the information under Section 8 of the RTI Act while stating that that the matter regarding promotions is pending in court and hence the revelation of any further information at this stage will compromise the 2 interest of BSNL in the Court. This order of the FAA is grossly improper as no exemption under any sub-clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act was mentioned in the order. Merely mentioning that the revelation of any further information at this stage will compromise the interest of BSNL in the Court does not fall under any of the exemptions mentioned under the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Commission is also unable to understand why information which should be usually placed in public domain under suo-moto disclosures can be said to be exempted under the RTI Act.
On a query to the CPIO to explain what matter is pending before a court of law, the CPIO submitted that the matter of conversion of posts from SDE(T) to AGM(T) was pending adjudication but now since the matter has been decided by CAT Chandigarh in the month of Feb, 2020, a revised reply was given to the appellant on 18.08.2020 in which complete information alongwith all the relevant enclosures was supplied to the appellant and this reply was sent through registered post and also by email. The Commission finds the reply dated 18.08.2020 as complete and since the appellant was also not present to point out the deficiencies in the reply, no further action is warranted in the matter. However, the respondent is advised to take due care in future while replying to RTI applications and ensure that while claiming any exemptions under the Act, the appropriate sections are quoted and proper justification is given for the same .
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO dated 18.08.2020 and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) 3 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4