Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Sinha vs Indian Navy on 27 January, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/INAVY/A/2023/161096
Rajesh Kumar Sinha .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
IHQ MoD (Navy), Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23-01-2024
Date of Decision : 27-01-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29-06-2022
CPIO replied on : 23-08-2022
First appeal filed on : 07-09-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 18-11-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28-12-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"It is requested to provide the information/documents pertaining to Naval Armament Inspection Organization (NAIO) as mentioned below:-
(1) Copy of reservation roster of the following cadre:1
(a) Senior Technical Officer (Mech)
(b) Civilian Technical officer (Mech)
(c) Foreman (Mech) (2) The copies of Minutes of Department Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings held since 01 Jan 19 till to date for the promotions of following post:
(a) CTO(Mech) to STO(Mech)
(b) FM(Mech) to CTO(Mech)
(c) CM(Mech) to FM(Mech) (3) Status of promotion /DPC to the post of STO(Mech) for the vacancy year 2022.
(4) Date on which action initiated for the conduct of DPC for the post of STO(Mech) for the year 2022.
(5) No. of STO(Mech) vacancies proposed to be filled by promotion in the year 2022.
(6) Whether the quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs & STs in the cadre of CTO (Mech) was collected as laid down at para 2(i) of DoP&T OM No. 36012/16/2019-Estt(Res) dated 12 Apr 22 before promulgation of promotion of Four SC and Two ST candidates of Foreman (Mech) to CTO(Mech) vide IHQ-MOD(N)/DPC letter CP(G)/0371/CTO(M)/DPC-2022 dated 23 Jun 22.
(a) If yes provide a copy of above data collected.
(b) If not provide reason for non-collection of subject data."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 23.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. Copies of reservation roster of STO (Mech), CTO (Mech) and Foreman (Mech) are placed at Encls 1 to 3.
2. The information sought by you pertains to personal information of third party (ies) and does not serve any public interest. Therefore, the information is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.2
3. The DPC case for promotion to the grade of STO (Mech) for the vacancy year 2022 is under process at MoD.
4. The DPC proposal for the post of STO (Mech) for the year 2022 was initiated on 15 Feb 22.
5. 04 (Four) vacancies in the grade of STO (Mech) are proposed to be filled by promotion in the year 2022.
6. The DoP&T OM No. 36912/16/2019-Estt (Res) dated 12 Apr 22 has been issued in pursuance to Para 17 of Supreme Court of India judgment dated 28 Jan 22 in case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. v/s Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011). The reservation roster of CTO (Mech) (copy is enclosed), based on which vacancies are earmarked and promotion order issued, is in conformity to Para 17 of the said Supreme Court judgment."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 18.11.2022, held as under:
"Your appeal ibid has been examined, wherein it has been observed that the relevant information has already been provided to you vide IHQ MOD/ CPIO (N) letter DL/0812/10255 dated 23 Aug 22. Notwithstanding, clarification with respect to your appeal is enumerated below:-
(a) For Para (a). Minutes of DPC meeting are confidential in nature and consists of information regarding eligibility, disciplinary status, fit/ unfit status of all candidates under the zone of consideration related to that DPC. This is third-party information, disclosure of which serves no public interest. However, based on the outcome of the DPC and approval of the Competent Authority, a Panel of promotion is issued for general information.
(b) For Para (b). All promotions granted are subject to any future orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with respect to judgement dated 28 Jan 22 in SLP (C) No. 36012/16/2019-Estt (Res) dated 12 Apr 22. The Reservation Roster indicates data of various category of candidates (SC/ST/UR) in a particular grade and has already been provided to you.
(c) Hence, the earlier information in this regard is maintained."3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Cdr. Anil Kumar, CPIO and Shri T. Hussain, CAO present in person.
The written submission of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in denying the information on point No. 2 of the RTI application. Further, categorical response on point No. 6 of the RTI application has also not been provided to him.
With respect to point No. 6 of the RTI application, the Appellant further contended that OM No. 36912/16/2019-Estt (Res) dated 12.04.2022 has promulgated directives for collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of SCs & STs representation in respective grade/cadre before conducting the promotions to that grade/cadre in accordance with Hon'ble Supreme Court of India judgment dated 28.01.2022 in case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta ad Ors. as (Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011). Further, request for providing detail/copy of quantifiable data collected during the promotion of Foreman (Mech) to CTO (Mech) vide IHQ- MOD(N)/DCP letter CP(G)/0371/CTO(M)/DPC-2022 dated 23.06.2022 is not provided by the Respondent till date.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the reply given by the CPIO and submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted that copy of reservation roster has already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete information on point Nos. 2 and 6 of the RTI application was not provided to him by the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that 4 vide their letter dated 23.08.2022, they have categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant including copy of reservation roster.
The Commission is of the opinion that the information sought by the Appellant on point No. 2 of the RTI application pertains to personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
With respect to point No. 6 of the RTI application, the Commission observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent. Therefore, as per the request of the Appellant and in the interest of justice, the Respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of available and relevant records related to the information sought on point No. 6 of the RTI application on a mutually decided date & time, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically/e-mail and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record the CPIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost upto 10 pages, for pages exceeding this limit, CPIO may charge prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 27-01-2024 5 6