Central Information Commission
Karthikeyan K. vs Border Security Force on 4 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/652253
Shri Karthikeyan K. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Border Security Force
Date of Hearing : 27.08.2025
Date of Decision : 27.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.07.2024
PIO replied on : 06.08.2024
First Appeal filed on : 19.08.2024
First Appellate Order on : 27.09.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 23.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-
a) "Provide copy of note sheet / notes of non-consideration of my posting during ATO-2024.
b) Is there any policy supports for consideration of name during ATO relating to cut-off date i.e. 30th June of every year. Please provide copy of the same.
c) If yes, was there any fault on individual issued order of ATO- 2021 (FHQ BSF Sig No. R/3227 dtd 07/07/2021) after cut-off date.
d) Despite the completion of my tenure, my case was not considered for ATO-2024. But, the request of Sh. Sandeep Singh, DC (Elect) (IRLA No. 41004647) for posting has been considered by FHQ BSF during ATO-2024. I kindly request clarification on the nature of his request, which was given preference than my case i.e. on medical ground and tenure completion.
e) Please inform why I was not being considered for posting during ATO-2024.
f) Annual Posting/Transfer Engg Officers 2024 issued vide FHQ BSF Sig No. R/3245 dtd 12/07/2024 after the cut-off date i.e. 30th June 2024. In that message, it has been mentioned that tenure of officers who have been posted under Kashmir FTR will be upto ATO-2027 and who have been posted other than Kashmir FTR will be upto Page 1 ATO-2028. Similarly, ATO-2021 for Engg Officers had also been issued on 07/07/2021 after the 30th June 2021. Kindly clarify why the same procedure could not be adopted for ATO-2021 on equal treatment for considering the affected Officers."
The CPIO, Border Security Force vide letter dated 06.08.2024 replied as under:-
2. "..........it is to inform you that in terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act-2005, Border Security Force, being a Security Organization as listed in the Second Schedule of the Act, has been given exemption from the provision of this Act except matter related to Human Right violation & corruption cases.
3. In view of the above, we express our inability to furnish the required information as the information sought by you does not fall within the ambit of Section-24."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 27.09.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Gupta, DIG, BSF, CPIO- participated in the hearing The Appellant stated that relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information sought relates to his own posting and same should be furnished to him.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written averments and stated that by virtue of provision contained in Section-24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by the Appellant, cannot be provided since the BSF is an organization listed in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act 2005, dealing with Security is exempted from providing information except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. He averred that the information sought by the Appellant does not fall under either of the two aforementioned categories. Written submission dated 19.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
4. "..To substantiate the stand taken by BSF for invoking provisions of Section 24 (1) of RTI Act 2005, following points are submitted :-
a) In terms of Section 24(1) RTI Act, BSF being Security Organization is exempted from the provisions of this Act except Page 2 information pertaining to the allegation of corruption and human rights violations.
b) The information desired by appellant does not pertains to any case of alleged Human Right Violation or corruption, as such same was denied..."
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the submissions of both parties it is evident that the Respondent had sent an appropriate reply in terms of the provision of the RTI Act. Commission observes that the BSF is an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the BSF is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Commission notes that there is no material on record to show that there was any corruption or violation of human rights so as to bring the case of the Appellant within the ambit of the Proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission 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 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)