Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Venugopala Rao Paidi vs Department Of Posts on 27 February, 2026

                                       केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2025/133216

Venugopala Rao Paidi                                            ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO: Department of Posts,
New Delhi                                                     ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 27.11.2024              FA       : 06.02.2025              SA     : 30.09.2025

CPIO : 27.12.2024             FAO : 01.04.2025                   Hearing : 04.02.2026


Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:

➢ It is Directed by Postal Directorate vide letter No 47-1/91/SPB-1 dated 16.11.2001 to all Postal Circles to Recruit 500 Postal Assistants from All Circles. Kindly intimate the following information.

1. Date of notification for All Circles and how many filled and unfilled Posts. Also provide Notification copies.

2. Unfilled vacancies filled from same circle or diverted to other circles in subsequent Notification and date of issue of Notifications and copies of notifications.

3. Working strength of PAs (warrant Officers) as on 16.11.2001 at Army Postal Service from All circles.

4. Working strength of PAs (warrant Officers) as on 17.09.2003 at Army Postal Service from All circles.

5. Specially Recruited PAs for APS from All Circles from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2007.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"It is to inform that CPIO deals with the Personnel Policy matter of Group C employees of the Department of Posts. No such compiled information is available with the undersigned CPIO. However, the same may be called from concerned Postal Circles. Details of CPIOs of Postal Circles is available in the Department of Posts website. i.e. https://www.indiapost.gov.in/sites/PostalCircles/AndhraPradesh/Pages/cpio.asp"

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.04.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.09.2025.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Haribabu Vandana, Suptd. of Posts, attended the hearing through video conference; and Amit, CPIO, attended the hearing in- person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had deliberately concealed the information and claimed that the notification for the averred recruitment of 500 posts was circulated in 2004 to all Circles.

7. The respondent (New Delhi) while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and indefinite in nature. He further endorsed their latest written submissions dated 28.01.2026 which are taken on record and the relevant portions thereof are extracted below for reference:

".....5. Applicant further filed second appeal No CIC/POSTS/A/2025/133216 before Hon'ble CIC.

6. In this context, it is informed that SPN- I Section (Department of Posts) deals with the Personnel Policy matters of Group 'C employees of the Department of Posts. As no such consolidated data as requested by the applicant is maintained at the Directorate level. Furnishing information by forwarding the application to 23 Postal Circles across India is bound to disproportionately divert the resources of the Department in terms of section 7 (9) of the RTI, Act, 2005. Therefore, the same cannot be done.

7. In view of the above, the Hon'ble Commission is requested to kindly consider the practical limitations highlighted, and to pass a just and reasoned order in the interest of justice and administrative efficiency. It is assured that the full compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Commission will be made in letter and spirit."

The CPIO, Srikakulam Division, reiterated the aforementioned submissions, drawing reference to the exemption laid down under Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate response has been provided by the CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Keeping in view the nature CIC/POSTS/A/2025/133216 Page 3 of 5 of information sought by the appellant concerning 23 Circle Offices, the CPIO is not expected to compile information in order to respond to an RTI request. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it has been held as under:

"35..... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..."

Furthermore, the Appellant has indirectly raised allegations regarding certain inaction on the part of respondent and in case of grievance(s), if any, the appellant is at liberty to file a representation before an appropriate forum, since redressal of the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission also observes that the Appellant's request for condonation of delay is not backed by any documents to prove his cause. However, since the delay in filing the second appeal is only about 60 days, the same is condoned. No further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 27.02.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 CIC/POSTS/A/2025/133216 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, RTI Cell, SPN-I, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001

2. Venugopala Rao Paidi CIC/POSTS/A/2025/133216 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)