Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Kataria vs Ministry Of Culture on 1 April, 2026
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027
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/MCULT/A/2025/636027
Vinod Kumar Kataria ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Ministry of
Culture, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.05.2025 FA : 05.07.2025 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 26.06.2025 FAO : 25.07.2025 Hearing : 05.03.2026
Date of Decision: 30.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2025 seeking information on the following points:
"...That following information are required in accordance with RTI Act in time bound manner against the CCRT recruitment, advertised by CCRT to file up the vacant Group -'B' & 'C' Posts in mission mode in Employment News, Weekly (21-27 September 2024) vide Advertisement No. CCRT/11011/07/2024/ it pertains to corruption i.e. recruitment scam of CCRT.
(a) Please provide the certified of enquiry report conducted on above said recruitment of CCRT.Page 1 of 10
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027
(b) Please provide the certified copy of note sheet, where approval was sort to conduct the enquiry on above said recruitment of CCRT.
(c) Please provide the details of officer of Ministry of Culture who have conducted the enquiry on above said recruitment of CCRT..etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.06.2025 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
2. In this regard, it is informed that the information sought by you is exempted for disclosure as Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the RTI application is rejected under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.07.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.07.2025 observed as under:-
2. The appeal preferred by the appellant has been scrutinized vis-a-vis reply furnished by CPIO and it has been found that the information sought by you is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore CPIO has replied the appellant accordingly. Hence, the First Appeal dated 05.07.2025 of appellant is disposed of.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person along with Shri Ashok Kumar.
Respondent: Shri Vinay Kumar Tarun, US and Ms Bhavya Gulati, SO- participated in the hearing.Page 2 of 10
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided by the CPIO. He reiterated the averments made in his written submission dated 01.03.2026. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..2. That fact of corrupt practices and wilful misuse of public office by CCRT officials came out in light in Preliminary Enquiry conducted on the direction of Hon'ble Lokpal of India and from the Audit Report of DGACR.
(a) Shri Surender Kaul, D.G./Director did not have the essential qualification at the time of his appointment to the post of D.G./Director and copy of the file noting, and correspondence portion related to his appointment to the post of DG/Director is not available. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(b) Shri G.C. Joshi did not have the essential qualification at the time of his appointment to the post of Dy Director/Director. He stands superannuated from the service. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(c) Mr. S.B. Verma did not have the essential qualifications at the time of his appointment to the post of Video Editor on 21.02.1995, he was simply Intermediate (12th Class). However, the selection committee in its meeting held on 03.02.1995 recommended Mr. S.B Verma for appointment for the post of Video Editor. He stands superannuated from the service on 31.01.2026 in PB-3 15600-39100 GP-7600). (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(d) Rishi Kumar Vashist appointment in CCRT, from which organization he was called for interview to the post of DD (Publication) is not known to CCRT but he was appointed direct recruitment appointee in CCRT Page 3 of 10 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027 with having the essential qualification. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India)
(c) CCRT accepted that CCRT is not member registered with asry Pension Trust or Pension Regulatory Authority, Govt. of India but giving pension as per the direction of Ministry of Culture.
(1) CCRT accepted in Audit that CCRT had converted CPF Scheme into GPF Scheme as per its own whims and fancies without following the due process as per Las
(g) Advance Increment to Y Chandersekhar. CCRT accepted that Mr. Y Chandra Sekhar was on a deputation from A.P. Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad. He was absorbed in CCRT on 01.01.2010 and was given five advance increments as per Rule 22 of CCRT Byelawa. It is pertinent to mention that the New Pension Scheme (in short NPS) was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004 vide the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) notification No 5/7/2003 PR dated 22/12/2003, whereas he was paid pension after retirement by CCRT as per its own whims and fancies in Old Pension Scheme (in short OPS). Para 2 Audit remarks in the absence of the Ministry of Culture-
approved Service Bye Laws of CCRT for the yeur 1987, audit couldn't ascertain whether the grant of five advance incremems granted to Sh Y Chandra Sekhar aligns with approved Service bye laws. It is pertinem to mention that Rule 22 of CCRT Byelaws says that advance increments in the case of direct recruits to any category of posts, the Executive Committee Chairman may grant up to five advance increments on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Here CCRT had violated its own Service Byelaws Rule-22
(h) With regard to Shri Yashpal Rangi, as per CCRT reply the presence of Shri Yashpal Raurs in the court is not in the knowledge of CCRT and Page 4 of 10 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027 hence CCRT cannot comment on the same. It is pertinent to mention that statement is to sort from CCRT with whose approval CCRT has paid the huge amount of fees in lakhs to private counsel Sh. Yashpal Rangi from public fund.
(1) It is admitted by CCRT that Mr. Rajesh Bhatnagar Ex-DD (Fin) was retired on 31.07.2020 and his stal period of service in terms of extension reemployment is exccoding the limit of 2 years, his further extension beyond 2 years is violation of rule 17(m) of service bye laws for which CCRT has given relaxation under Rule-64 service bye laws for extension upto 31.01.2024 (Total 13 Years (16 Months). Here CCRT had openly violated FR-56 (d) anl its own Service Bye Law @ It is admitted by CCRT that Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director was retired on superannuation on 31.01.2023 and the extension of Mr. Vashist was done as per Rule 17(ii) and Rule 64 of the Service Bye-laws of CCRT. Here CCRT had openly violated FR-56 (d). Till date on temporary basis the post of Director CCRT since 01.02.2024 is run by Mr. Rajeev Kunar as Director CCRT un ad-hoc hasis.
It is admitted by CCRT that De Rahul Kumar gave technical resignation on 01.07.2019. It is a fact that in his relieving order no mention of the lien by CCRT Office has been done but subsequently Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director CCRT issued him an office order. No CCRT/1102/01/2010/24A dated 01.10.2019 on back date for keeping his lien to the post of Field Officer for a period of two years. Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director CCRT issued him a letter CCRT/1011/02/2021 dated 25-11-2019 stating that Dr. Rahaul Kumar is required so join as Field Officer in CCRT before joining as Deputy Director (General). His joining in CCRT as Deputy Director (General) will be effective after he joins as Field Officer. He was given promotion Page 5 of 10 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027 of Deputy Director (General) in Composite Method under promotion. It is pertinent to mention that record is to be asked from R-8 regarding his joining as Field Officer in CCRT. Para 4 Audit remarks Mr. Rahul Kumar, currently serving as Deputy Director at CCRT, was relieved from CCRT on July 4,2019, to join IGNCA after securing the position of Research Officer. Notably, there is no documentation of a lien entry in his service record, despite Mr. Rahul Kumar being granted a lien according to order no CCRT/11012/0l/2010/24A dated 01.10.2019. The same may be reviewed at the level of competent authority.
3. That fact of corrupt practices and wilful misuse of public office by CCRT officials came out in light in illegal recruitment of Field Officer post.
(a) Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director, CCRT had published the advertisement in Employment News on 19-06-2021 (i.e. Saturday) for appointment to Eight (08) posts of Field Officer, Group "B" in Pay Matrix Level 7 (Rs.44,900-1,42,400) by Direct Recruitment with All India Service Liability.
(b) Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director, CCRT without issue of any corrigendum of cancellation again published the advertisement in Employment News on 21.01.2023 and invites applications to fill up the Nine (9) posts of Field Officers, Group 'B' Level-7, in pay matrix Rs. 44900- 142400/- as per 7 CPC on Direct Recruitment and Promotion at CCRT, New Delhi.
(c) After a gap of more than one-year Mr. K Sankar Lingam Ganesh (R-
12) uploaded the list of provisionally shortlisted and not shortlisted applicants on 28.03.2024 in CCRT website. The list of candidates not shortlisted for FO post, Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.19); Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.58) and Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.113).
Page 6 of 10CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027
(d) CCRT officials had formed second Scrutiny Committee without any corrigendum as per its own whims and fancies without any justification placed the applicants/candidates who were not shortlisted for the post of Field Officer by the first Scrutiny Committee in shortlisted applicants/candidates category, the details was uploaded in the CCRT website in September 2024. List of candidates shortlisted for FO- Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.19); Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.58) and Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.113) thereafter result of FO was uploaded in the CCRT website where the candidates not selected by the first scrutiny committee were declared successful their names were Mr. Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.4, in Un-reserved Category); Mr. Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.1, in Un-reserved Category) and Ms. Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.1, in SC Category). Here CCRT has violated Article 309, DoPT OM No. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006 and DoPT OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020.
(e) It is submitted that DoPT OM No. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006 clarified in the light of a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 3595- 3612/1999 etc. in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and others has reiterated that any public appointment has to be in terms of the Constitutional scheme in para 2 that if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.
(f) It is submitted that DoPT OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020 clarified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgement dated 10.04.2006 in case of Uma Devi that (a) para 2(ii) filling of vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage. or other considerations (b) para 2(iv) Regularization is not Page 7 of 10 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027 and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 & 309 of the Constitution of India, or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
4. It is submitted that my above said Appeals/Complaints are self- explanatory to proof that Dr. Rahul Kumar Deputy Director & CPIO CCRT is habitual in offending Section 6(2); Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that to cover the corrupt practices of CCRT and wilful misuse of public office where he himself directly or indirectly involves, wilfully misusing the Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is humbly requested before the Hon'ble CIC to call the record from CCRT since November 2019 to till date where Dr. Rahul Kumar Deputy Director & CPIO CCRT, had/have given the reply against RTI applications filed in CCRT under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which will clear his mindset against corrupt practice and wilful misuse of public office..."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant relates to constitution of committee by the ministry of culture to inquire into the complaints concerning CCRT recruitment advertisement. They explained that CCRT had issued a recruitment advertisement in Employment News (21-27 September 2024) to fill vacant Group 'B' and 'C' posts. Subsequently, certain complaints were received in the Ministry regarding the recruitment process. They stated that upon receipt of these complaints, the Ministry of Culture constituted a Committee to inquire into the matter. Further, the Committee submitted a confidential Inquiry Report to the Ministry, which was thereafter forwarded to the Director, CCRT, for appropriate action. They stated that since no decision has been taken by the competent authority, the matter has not attained finality and accordingly, any information in this regard cannot be provided as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. A written submission has been received Page 8 of 10 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027 from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Response to the RTI application, the then CPIO, Ministry of Culture, Shri Prem Pal Singh, who was dealing with matters related to CCRT in the Ministry, vide reply MA dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure-II), informed the applicant that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The RTI applicant subsequently filed a First Appeal dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure-III). The First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Culture, after examining the matter, vide Order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure-IV), upheld the decision of the then CPIO.
4. In this regard, it is submitted that the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training (CCRT) is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Culture. CCRT had issued a recruitment advertisement in Employment News (21-27 September 2024) to fill vacant Group 'B' and 'C' posts. Subsequently, certain complaints were received in the Ministry regarding the recruitment process. Upon receipt of these complaints, the Ministry of Culture constituted a Committee to inquire into the matter.
5. The Committee submitted a confidential Inquiry Report to the Ministry, which was thereafter forwarded to the Director, CCRT, for appropriate action. It appears that the then CPIO, considering the report confidential in nature, decided not to disclose the same to the RTI applicant, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Authority.
6. It is submitted that the Inquiry Report may be disclosed after completion of the necessary action by the Director, CCRT, on the finding$ and observations contained therein and upon submission of the Action Taken Report to the Ministry.."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information Page 9 of 10 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/636027 related to constitution of committee by the Ministry of Culture to inquire into the complaints concerning CCRT recruitment advertisement for the Group B and C posts. It is noted that no final decision in the matter has been taken by the Competent Authority. Considering the written and submissions of the parties and the fact competent authority has not taken any decision in the matter, the Commission is of the opinion that reply furnished by the PIO is appropriate and there is no legal infirmity found in the response furnished by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO under RTI, Under Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Culture, C.S.L., Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2 Vinod Kumar Kataria Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)