Central Information Commission
Vijaya vs Central Silk Board on 3 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CSBRD/A/2023/623924
Ms. Vijaya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Central Silk Board ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.05.2024
Date of Decision : 31.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.03.2023
PIO replied on : 03.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 05.04.2023
First Appellate Order on : 04.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 23.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"(1). Details of scientists attended in the Assessment Interviews held during the period 27.1.14 to 20.2.14.
(2). Details of scientists Not Qualified in the Assessment Interviews held during the period 27.1.14 to 20.2.14.
(3). Copy of noting put up for approval for issuing promotion orders of qualified scientists w.e.f. 26.2.14.
(4). Whether the list of scientists (Sl. No. 1 to Sl. No. 245) Qualified in the Assessment Interviews held during the period 27.1.14 to 20.2.14 was being prepared by CSB on their interview performance basis or at random basis or their seniority basis?
(5). Whether the MFCS interview performance for the post of Scientist 'D' has done (w.e.f. 27.1.14 to 20.2.14) any impact on the seniority position maintained by each scientist at his/her level of Scientist C post held before the interview? (6). In your reply, which was defunct on 7.3.23 and functional wef 8.3.23, Vide Ir No. CSB-63 (2)/RTI/2010-ES. III (Vol. VIII) Dt. 6.3.23, it is mentioned that' No seniority list is being maintained for the scientists in CSB as there is no fixed cadre strength for each post". If it is so on which list of seniority basis Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has recommended the promotion of one Scientist 'D' to Director Post (Ref Lr No. CSB-22 (1)/07-Coord Vol. Dt. 16.11.22)?Page 1 of 4
(7). When was the latest DPC held for promoting Scientist- Ds to Directors and Names and numbers of the Scientist - Ds are shortlisted and being sent for approval from MOT, New Delhi for the ensuing vacancies, besides on what seniority list basis scrutiny done by DPC?"
The CPIO vide letter dated 03.04.2023 replied as under:-
"1. Copy of the List of Scientists attended the Assessment interviews held during the period 27.01.2014 to 20.02.2014 contains 12 pages.
2. Copy of the List of Scientists not qualified in the Assessment interviews held during the period 27.01.2014 to 20.02.2014 contains 6 pages.
3. The Applicant has sought a copy of file noting put up for approval for issuing promotion orders of qualified scientists w.e.f. 26.2.2014. Under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, the file notings cannot be divulged as it involves opinions of other members.
4. The list of Scientists (Sl. No. 1 to Sl. No. 245) Qualified in the Assessment interviews held during the period 27.01.2014 to 20.02.2014 was prepared by CSB Institute-wise (including all Units under its control) as on 26.02.2014. The said list was provided to the Applicant vide letter dated 06.03.2023 in response to her RTI application dated 16.02.2023.
5. In terms of RTI Act, 2005, only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Therefore, your request for providing this information is rejected.
6. The Ministry of Textiles had notified the Central Silk Board, Scientist, Group 'A" Post Recruitment Rules, 2013 in the official gazette on 28.11.2013. Seniority List of Scientists as on 26.02.2014 was published by the CSB based on their seniority in the feeder grade for in situ promotion as all these Scientists were already in service as SRA/SRO/DD/JD before notification of the said Recruitment Rules of 2013. However, consequent upon Notification of Central Silk Board, Scientist, Group 'A" Post Recruitment Rules, 2013 (ibid), the Seniority List is not being maintained in respect of such Scientists who are recruited and appointed in terms of the above cited Recruitment Rules, 2013. For promotion to the post of Director in CSB, in respect of Scientist-D who were already in service as SRA/SRO/DD/JD before notification of the said Recruitment Rules of 2013 the eligibility list of Scientist-D possessing the qualification of Ph.D and who are coming within the zone of consideration as per DoPT guidelines is placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for evaluation.
7. As stated in Point No.(6) above, Central Silk Board prepared the eligibility list of Scientist-D which was examined by the DPC at its Meeting held on 09.01.2023 for promotion to the post of Director. Since the names of the Scientist-D examined and recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee are confidential in nature your request for providing the information is rejected."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 04.05.2023 held as under:-
"The Observations on points raised by the Appellant in her appeal are as under:-Page 2 of 4
The CPIO has stated that under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, the file notings cannot be divulged as it involves opinions of other members. In situ promotion under Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme is granted to the CSB Scientists on merit- basis. The file notings contain certain personal information of the Scientists which are treated as 'Confidential'. Based on the decision taken by the Central Information Commission on 03.11.2006 in the Appeal filed by Dr. R.K. Garg, New Delhi (File No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00363), the CPIO has rejected the request of the Appellant to provide copy of file notings, which is in order.
The Directors and concerned Officers In-charge of CSB Units were requested to circulate the Inter-se Seniority List of Scientific Personnel of CSB as on 26.02.2014 among the Scientists working under their control vide Letter No.CSB-9(1)/2008-ES.II (Vol. III) dated 11.06.2014.
The eligibility list of Scientist-D possessing the qualification of Ph.D and who are coming within the zone of consideration as per following DoPT guidelines was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for evaluation for promotion to the post of Director:-
(i) DOPT O.M. No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10th April, 1989
(ii) DOPT O.M. No. 35034/7/97-Estt (D) dated 8th February 2002
(iii) DOPT O.M. No No.22011/1/2002-Estt [D] dated 6th January 2006
(iv) DoPT O.M. No. 22034/4/2012-Estt.(D) dated 02.11.2012 and
(v) DoPT O.M. No. 22011/4/2013-Estt(D) dated 8th May, 2017 3 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the appeal made by the appellant stands disposed of with the above observations."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 22.05.2024 has been received from CPIO reiterating and justifying the denial of file notings. It has also been stated by the Respondent that the Appellant is the spouse of an ex employee of the Central Silk Board at REC, Vikrabad both of whom have been repeatedly filing RTI applications on the same issue. A copy of the written submission has also been sent to the Appellant on her registered mail.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through telephone Respondent: Shri M Mahadeva - CPIO was present through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant stated that she had not received any information in response to her queries. Respondent contended that response in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act had been duly furnished to the Appellant. The Respondent further referred to the detailed written submission dated 22.05.2024 in support of the Page 3 of 4 contention that reply sent by them to the Appellant was in accordance with provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and averments of the parties reveal that appropriate response had been sent to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering the fact that the written submission dated 22.05.2024 filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self explanatory, the Respondent is directed to once again send the Appellant a copy of the written submission with complete annexures, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. In view of the fact that appropriate response had already been sent by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)