Central Information Commission
Ramesh D Sarasia vs S.V. National Institute Of Technology, ... on 22 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/SNITS/A/2017/183733/00684
File no.: CIC/SNITS/A/2017/183733
In the matter of:
Ramesh D Sarasia
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Sadar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology Surat
Ichchhanath, Surat - 395 009
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/12/2017 CPIO replied on : 08/12/2017 First appeal filed on : 11/12/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 12/12/2017 Second Appeal dated : 15/12/2017 Date of Hearing : 21/05/2019 Date of Decision : 21/05/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present through VC
Respondent: Dr Hemant Kumar, Associate Professor & PIO along with Dr D P Wakharia, present through VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copies of the applications of Mrs. Preeti B. Vaidya as well as other candidates appeared in interview and their merit list who were selected for 1 appointment as contractual staff in Establishment section/ RTI Cell under the Incharge, Registrar Dr. D.P. Vakharia, SVNIT Surat.
2. A copy of approval note for appointment of Mrs. Preeti B. Vaidya as contractual staff working in Establishment section/ RTI Cell under, Incharge, Registrar Dr. D.P. Vakharia, SVNIT Surat.
3. A copy of the note recorded for recruiting of staff through service provider as contractual staff working in Establishment section/ RTI Cell under, Incharge, Registrar Dr. D.P. Vakharia, SVNIT Surat.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and complete information should be provided to him. He further submitted that the reply of the PIO and the order of the FAA are both contradictory and also both have been provided by one and the same person.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant on 08.12.2017.He reiterated the contents of the enclosure dated 08.12.2017 wherein it has been stated, "SVNIT, Surat has many contractors for supplying manpower on contractual basis. They are supplying manpower for different work based on Institute requirement. The contract awarded to the contractor from time to time and if the requirement of manpower, than and than only the contractor supply the manpower. Institute has not done recruitment of the information sought pertaining to Mrs. Preeti Vaidya uptill now. Therefore, Institute does not have any information related to based on the requirement of the Institute Mrs. Preeti Vaidya".
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the PIO in his reply dated 08.12.2017 had enclosed an office note from the PIO Admn, wherein it was stated that SVNIT, Surat has many contractors for supplying manpower on contractual basis, based on the requirement of the Institute. Since the institute itself has not done recruitment of any of the contractual employees including 2 File no.: CIC/SNITS/A/2017/183733 Mrs. Preeti Vaidya, therefore, no such information is available with them and hence the question of providing such information to the appellant did not arise.
It is also observed that the FAA in his order dated 12.12.2017 has stated that "PIO has complied reply and has not denied the request for information. However, PIO has replied as per the clause under Section 8(I) (1) and under section 11(1), (2), (3), (4) RTI Act, 2005". Both the PIO reply and the FAA order are in contradiction to each other as has been rightly pointed out by the appellant as the PIO in his reply has only stated that no such records are available, claiming no exemption under the RTI Act. However, the PIO Shri D P Wakharia clarified that the exemption claimed in FAA order dated 12.12.2017 was 8(1)(j) rather than 8(I) (1) as it was a mere typographical error. But the question remains that no exemption was claimed by the PIO in his reply as has been referred to by the FAA in his order.
The Commission also noted that the PIO, Admn and the FAA at that time was the same person i.e. Dr D P Wakharia. On an enquiry by the Commission about this situation, the present PIO, Dr Hemant Kumar submitted that this practice has been followed in the organisation since 2010 where the PIO, Admn and the FAA are the same person and at present also, the same practice exists. To reiterate the absurdity evidenced in the present set of circumstances, it may be noted that PIO and FAA are one and the same officer, and such a state of affairs makes the purpose of having a statutory office of First Appellate Authority futile.
The Commission is aghast to see such a state of poor implementation of the RTI Act in Sadar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology. The organisation as a whole seems to be unaware of the provisions of the RTI Act.
In this context, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the SVNIT to Section 19(1) of the RTI Act which is reproduced below:
"Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the 3 expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time."
From a plain reading of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, it is clear that the FAA should be senior in rank to the Central Public Information officer. Both the positions cannot be occupied by the same person because the FAA is duty bound to pass a speaking order while looking into the deficiencies in the reply of the PIO/CPIO and if both the positions are occupied by the same person, by no stretch of imagination will he be able to look into the deficiencies of his own reply nor would this be ethically correct. For this very purpose, the RTI Act has provided a hierarchy which is to be followed while dealing with the RTI applications. The applicant firstly files his application with the CPIO. It is the responsibility of the Central Public Information Officer (CP1O) of a public authority to supply correct and complete information within the specified time to any person seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005. There are possibilities that a CPIO may not act as per provisions of the Act or an applicant may not otherwise be satisfied with the decision of the CPIO. The Act contains provision of two appeals to tide over such situations. The first appeal lies within the public authority itself which is made to an officer designated as the First Appellate Authority by the concerned public authority. The First Appellate Authority has to be an officer senior in rank to the CP1O. The second appeal lies with the Central Information Commission. The SVNIT seems to have overlooked such mandatory provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the PIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act after revisiting the reply of the CPIO dated 08.12.2017 and the order of the FAA dated 12.12.2017, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.4
File no.: CIC/SNITS/A/2017/183733 Considering the state of the implementation of RTI Act in the SVNIT, the Commission hereby recommends to the head of the public authority viz., Director, SVNIT to look into any such instances of total discord amongst the CPIOs and FAAs from recurring in future and appoint separate officers both at the CPIO level and the First Appellate Authority level keeping in mind the provisions of the RTI Act and submit a report to the Commission within one month of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
Copy to:
The Director
Sadar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology Surat Ichchhanath, Surat - 395 009 5