Satish Kumar Bansal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 6 May, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Satish Kumar Bansal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 6 May, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.12.2017 and first appeal dated 30.01.2018:

Page 1 of 5

(i) Is there any uniformity in the criteria followed for promotion from Grade A to Grade B through qualifying channel and whether such criteria differs from year to year basis.

(ii) Who is the competent authority to decide such criteria or is it left to the total discretion of the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Interview Board.

(iii) A copy of all the circulars (in documentary form) issued by the RBI laying down the criteria for promotion of Officers from Grade A to Grade B, Grade B to Grade C and from Grade C to Grade D w.e.f. 1 January 2004 till date.

(iv) Kindly provide the list of all the candidates who were promoted from Grade A to Grade B through qualifying channel in each year, from the year 2004 to 2017 along with the marks obtained by each of them in interview.

(v) Marks obtained in interview by the applicant viz. S K. Bansal (PF No. DIB0124) during the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2011, 2012 2013 and 2017 for promotion from Grade A to Grade B.

(vi) The Cut-off marks fixed by the Departmental Promotion Committee of RBI category-wise i.e General, SC/ST OBC, etc. for promotion from Grade A to Grade B through qualifying channel for each year i.e from the year 2004 to 2017.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, S. B. Road, Fort, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response, the appellant filed first appeal.

Page 2 of 5

The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 15.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 30.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 30.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had not provided the information to be mandatorily maintained by the respondent bank.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.01.2018 replied that information in respect of point no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application was not covered within definition of 'information' given in section 2 (f) of RTI Act and that remaining information was available on the web portal.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri R R Kamble, General Manager and CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided complete information. Moreover, being a public authority the respondent bank was under an obligation to place and update the same in public domain.

5.2. The respondent while defending their reply dated 23.01.2018 submitted that the circulars pertaining to RTI application were available on their web portal. The respondent explained that the remaining information was not available with them in compiled form, hence, could not be furnished to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records feels, that the queries sought in point nos 1 and 2 of the RTI application are hypothetical in nature and do not squarely fall within the definition of 'information' laid down in section 2 (f) of RTI Act.

Page 3 of 5

The appellant may challenge the findings of DPC regarding promotion and seek recourse from appropriate forum as the same is beyond the scope of RTI Act. However, copies of circulars, if any, relating to promotion in respect of Grade A to Grade B may be provided to the appellant. Keeping in view the principles of transparency and accountability, the respondent is also directed that information in respect of point nos. 4,5 and 6 of RTI application being specific in nature be made available to the appellant within three weeks from date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 04.05.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPTT., RIA DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, S.B. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 Page 4 of 5 THE F.A.A, Reserve Bank Of India, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPTT., RIA DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, S.B. ROAD, FORT,MUMBAI - 400 001 SATISH KUMAR BANSAL Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission