Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Nitish Kumar Srivastava vs Union Of India Through Chairman on 1 October, 2013
(OPEN COURT) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD Allahabad, this the 01st day of October, 2013 Honble Mr. Shashi Prakash, Member- A. Honble Ms. Jasmine Ahmed, Memer J. Original Application No. 1171 of 2013 (U/s 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Nitish Kumar Srivastava, S/o Shri S.N. Srivastava, R/o 594/23/28-A, Ramanand Nagar, Allapur, Allahabad. Applicant. By Advocate: Shri S.K. Om V E R S U S 1. Union of India through Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Opp. G.M/ NCR Office Building, Near Subedarganj Railway Hospital, Allahabad. 2. Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Opp. G.M/NCR Office Building, Near Subedarganj Railway Hospital, Allahabad. Respondents By Advocate : Shri O R D E R
By way of the instant original application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant seeks direction to the respondents to provide all the requisite information sought by him vide his letter dated 04.03.2013 including his OMR answer sheet and the model answer of the written examination.
2. Shri S.K. Om, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant applied against the notification issued by the R.R.Bs on 10.03.2012 for filling up 6 and 15 posts of Senior Section Engineer (Mechanical/ CW) in Pay Band Rs. 9300-34500 + GP 4600 in North Central Railway, Allahabad and Northern Railway, Allahabad respectively. The applicant appeared in the written examination held on 16.09.2012 but when the result was announced on 25.02.2013 he was not declared successful. According to the applicant, as he had performed well in the written examination he was confident of his success therein and apprehended that his name has been missing from the list of successful candidates due to inadvertent mistake. The applicant by his letter dated 04.03.2013 sought certain information including his OMR answer sheet and the model answer of the written examination from the respondents. According to the counsel for the applicant, the required information was denied by the Public Information Officer of the respondents department without assigning any reason. For this reason the applicant has sought the relief in the present O.A in the form of issue of a direction to the respondents for supplying the requisite information sought by him by his letter dated 04.03.2013 including his OMR answer sheet and the model answer of the written examination.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
4. It is clear from the O.A that the relief sought by the applicant is specifically for seeking information and certain documents relating to the written examination conducted by the RRB. It does not relate to the service condition of a Govt. Servant. For seeking information from the Government departments, there is a separate Act known as Right to Information Act under which the citizens of India are entitled to elicit information as well as obtain documents from the Government departments in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. In the instant case, if the information has not been satisfactorily provided by the Public Information Officer of the concerned organization, the applicant has remedy to file first appeal before the designated authority and second appeal before the Central Information Commission.
5. In view of the above position that the task / duty of furnishing information and providing documents is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the R.T.I Act, and the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to enter into that area. Therefore, the present original application is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction and O.A is dismissed.
Member- J. Member-A.
Anand/
??
??
??
??
3