Central Information Commission
Vinoth Kumar R. vs Reserve Bank Of India on 11 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2022/663040
Vinoth Kumar R. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 19.10.2022 FA : 20.11.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 16.11.2022 FAO : 23.11.2022 Hearing : 06.03.2024
Date of Decision: 08.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2022 seeking information through 10 points in the following manner:
1. "How many vacancies were notified in the recruitments for the Post of Assistant in RBI, during the recruitments of 2016, 2017 and 2019, with office-wise breakdown please.
2. How many vacancies were notified for Ex Servicemen (Both EX-01 & EX-02) in the recruitments for the Post of Assistant in RBI, during the recruitments of 2016, 2017 and 2019, with office-wise breakdown please.Page 1 of 5
3. How many Ex-Servicemen (Both EX-01 & EX-02) qualified in the Online Preliminary Examination for the Post of Assistant in RBI, during the recruitments of 2016, 2017 and 2019, with office-wise breakdown please.
4. How many Ex-Servicemen (Both EX-01 & EX-02) qualified in the Online Mains Examination for the Post of Assistant in RBI, during the recruitments of 2016, 2017 and 2019, with office-wise breakdown please.
5. How many Ex-Servicemen (Both EX-01 & EX-02) qualified in the Language Proficiency Test (LPT) for the Post of Assistant in RBI, during the recruitments of 2016, 2017 and 2019, with office-wise breakdown please." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (1) - Please refer to relevant recruitment notification on our official website for recruitment related activities https://www.rbi.org.in.
Point (2) - Refer to the reply above.
Point (3) - Such information is not maintained and compiling it to reply to this query would disproportionately divert the resources of the Bank in terms of section 7 (9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, we are not in a position to provide the said information.
Point (4) & (5) - Refer the reply above." etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and observed inter alia as under:
"....It is seen that at queries no. 3-7, the appellant had sought for exhaustive list of 3 years i.e., 2016, 2017, 2019 data maintained at each regional offices for Ex Name of the Appellant : Vinoth Kumar R Date of receipt of RTI application : 19/10/2022 Date of reply of the CPIO, Human Resource Management Department (HRMD) : RBIND/R/E/22/06981 (Reply of CPIO 16/11/2022) Date of receipt of first appeal : 20/11/2022 servicemen who Page 2 of 5 have qualified in prelims, mains, LPT, called for Document verification and finally selected candidates. The CPIO replied that the information is not available in the desired manner. In terms of section 7(9) of RTI Act, an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. If there is no list as desired by the appellant, the CPIO cannot be directed to compile such a list..."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil stating inter alia as under:
"The information sought was very much concerned to Ex-Servicemen only. Being an ex-servicemen, I am one among the affected person in RBI's Recruitment of Ex Servicemen for the post of Assistants at its organization. Owing to misinterpretation of GoI policy (namely, Para 6A of Ex-Servicemen Rules 1979), a number ex-servicemen have been denied the job at the RBI, which is not the case with any other Central Govt Organisations/Public Sector Banks / Insurance Companies / SSC / Railways. The requested information would establish the fact that how many ex-servicemen have been affected by this process. The information if provided, will show that how many ex servicemen cleared the mains examination in the recruitments in the year 2016, 2017 and 2019 and how many ex-servicemen finally got selected for the job, against the notified ex servicemen vacancies at the organisation. The data is very much needed by us to establish the facts to the Government and bring forward the violation of Ex-Servicemen reservation at the organisation. Hence I humbly request to help us in this regard.
If the process of collecting office-wise i.e., zone-wise information on Sl. No. 2 to 7 of the subject RTI is a tedious process for the organisation, atleast the following information, without any office-wise breakdown for only Sl. No. 2, 4 & 7 may please be provided,..."
5. The Appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Prashant Ketkar, Manager (HR) & Rep. of CPIO along with Rohan Yadav, Legal Officer attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 56. The Appellant reiterated the grounds of the Second Appeal as quoted above and urged for limited relief that can be provided.
7. The Respondent emphasized on the FAA's observations and expressed their inability to collate even the restricted data being desired by the Appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant's insistence on being provided with such data, limited or otherwise which is not available or maintained by the public authority amounts to a prayer for creation of a record, which is not envisaged under the RTI Act. The FAA has adequately explained the said position to the Appellant and has also relied on appropriate case laws in this regard. Nonetheless, the Appellant's attention is invited to the same judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] as has been relied upon by the FAA, wherein the following observation was also made with respect to impractical demands for information:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information......The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in Page 4 of 5 collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
9. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 08.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Reserve Bank of India, Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, (HRMD), Ria Division,
Central Office, 21st Floor,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Fort, Mumbai-400001.
2. Vinoth Kumar R.
S/o. Late Rajamanickam
R/o. H. No. 235/135-G,
M. G. Rod, New Fairlands,
Salem, Tamil Nadu - 636016.
Page 5 of 5