Central Information Commission
Jyotirmay Kirtania vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 12 March, 2020
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/ESICO/C/2018/637327/03107
File no.: - CIC/ESICO/C/2018/637327
In the matter of:
Jyotirmay Kirtania
... Complainant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Employees State Insurance Coprporation,
Hqrs, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi- 110002
2. Assistant Director/CPIO
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Medical Branch-VI, Panchdeep Bhawan,
CIG Road, New Delhi- 110002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 21/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 21/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 10/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 02/11/2018 Complaint filed on : 14/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 11/03/2020 Date of Decision : 11/03/2020 The following were present:
Complainant: Present over VC Respondent: Reena Hira, Assistant Director & deemed PIO.
Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. List of names of faculty applicants in the rank of Assistant Professor(regular) in ESIC Medical Colleges (all over India), who applied for DACP/promotion during the period April 2017 to March 2018.1
2. List of names of faculty applicants in the rank of Associate Professor (regular) in ESIC Medical Colleges (all over India), who applied for DACP/promotion during the period April 2017 to March 2018.
3. List of ineligible / rejected faculty applicants in the rank of Assistant Professor (regular) in ESIC Medical Colleges (all over India) who applied for DACP /promotion during the period April 2017 to March 2018. Provide reasons for rejection /ineligibility thereof.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that in response to points no. 1 & 2 of his RTI application, the annexure provided by the CPIO was without any date bearing no heading and was without any signature. With regard to other points, no information was given to him.
The CPIO submitted that a timely and point-wise reply was given to the complainant on 21.08.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an appropriate and timely reply was given to the complainant on 21.08.2018. The complainant is aggrieved that the annexure given to him on points no. 1 & 2 was unsigned and without any heading. He submitted that he will be satisfied if an authenticated certified copy of the annexure is given to him. The CPIO submitted that she is willing to share the attested copy of the same with the complainant. The other contention raised by the complainant was with regard to points no. 5 & 6 where he submitted that it is not legally tenable that there is no seniority list for Associate Professors and Assistant Professors. To this, the CPIO submitted that they have already published the draft Seniority list, however, the final list is still under process. The Commission holds that on these points, the reply of the CPIO at the relevant time is also correct as under the provisions of the RTI Act, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.2
File no.: - CIC/ESICO/C/2018/637327 Decision:
In view of the above, the complaint per se is not established. However, the CPIO is cautioned to exercise due caution while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that only authentic & verified copies of the documents are sent to every applicant.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 3