Central Information Commission
Vijayasarathy vs Ut Of Puducherry on 28 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/626552
Vijayasarathy .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Puducherry Distilleries
Limited, R.S. No. 144 145,
Door No. 18, Ariyapalayam
Village, Villianur, Puducherry - 605 110 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2024
Date of Decision : 23.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 30.12.2022
First appeal filed on : 11.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 8
"I am residing at the above address and I am bona fide citizen of India and I am a graduate looking for competitive exam under direct recruitment but in Pondicherry distilleries Limited made illegal recruitment with knowledge/approval of IAS officers under the name of Board, Board consists of Five members, to establish the IAS officer (the Secretary (Ind. & Commerce) violating the rules that illegal, irregular and back-door appointments in Puducherry Distilleries Limited are frequently done by the authorities, violating their own Government Orders and contrary to the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Umadevi's case. Several appointments were made without availing equal opportunity to all eligible candidates and appointments are made based on favoritism and nepotism and at the whims and fancies of the authorities and such temporary employees are permanently regularized some time. Such practice result not only in unconstitutionality, but, the basic right of equal opportunity in public employment are denied to all the eligible candidates, who are all aspired to secure a public employment through open competitive process, to establish the truth to court I need the following information's from the Authority Director of Industries and Commerce and the Management of Puducherry Distilleries Limited, Statement: PDL PIO informed vide RTI reply No. PDL/PIO/First Appeal/Reply/788, dt. 10/10/2022 in Point No. 6 (a) (b) (c) that "53 persons regularized by Direct Recruitment after PDL Notification No.1502/DSE/Estt- I/D3/2015, dated 28.10.2015" In Notification No.1502/DSE/Estt-I/D3/2015, dated 28.10.2015 informed that"
NOTIFICATION Applications are invited from the eligible candidates of Indian Citizens who are Natives/Residents of Union Territory of Puducherry for Direct Recruitment to the 53 (Fifty- three) posts of Multi-Purpose Worker (Group 'C', carrying the Grade Pay of Rs.1800 in the Pay Band 1 of Rs.5200 20 200) to fill the existing vacancies in the Puducherry Distilleries Limited, Villianur, Puducherry. The Casual Labourers (CLRs), who have already put not less than 5 years of service in the PDL will also be considered.
Eligibility criteria:
Educational Qualification: Essential:- S.S.L.C or equivalent, Desirable:-H.S.C. or equivalent.
Candidates fulfilling the eligibility criteria may apply in the prescribed format along with ill requisite testimonials on or before 11-11-2015 (Wednesday) by 5- 00PM. In this regard kindly furnish the following information's:Page 2 of 8
1 (a) Whether above notification is published in Pondicherry Daily newspaper for open call for/direct recruitment? (b) If yes kindly furnish the copy of the newspaper?. (c) If no kindly furnish the reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for not announced in paper publication.
2.(a) Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) why the age limit is not fixed for Direct recruitment 53 Post MPW in PDL notification.
(b) Provide information whether 95 years old person is eligible for apply for direct Recruitment MPW for above notification at that time of notification stated above in 2015.
(c) Provide information regarding the Recruitment Rule of PDL what is the age limit for MPW at that time of Direct Recruitment in the year 2015 and Present 2022.
(d) Provide the names of the entire applicant and their age who are all submitted application for the above notification regarding the Recruitment of MPW 53 Posts.
(e) Provide the age and names of all the candidates passed and regularized in the 53 Direct Recruitment post of MPW.
3.(a) Kindly provide the total number of applications received.
(b) Names of all applicant names.
(c) Total number of applications rejected and applicant names.
(d) Total number of applications accepted and applicant names.
4.(a) Total Number of CLRs applied for the above post.
(b) Names of all CLRs who are all applied for direct recruitment.
5. (a) When did the Exam conducted for Direct Recruitment for the above MPW 53 Posts?
(b) Provide the copy of notification regarding the date of examination announced by PDL in Newspaper or any other mode?
6.(a) Total Number of candidates written the exam and their names.
(b) Provide information regarding the assignment of Roll Numbers to the Candidates and their names for the Recruitment Post of Multipurpose worker and date of examination
7.(a) Total Number of CLRs application received for direct Recruitment Post MPW.
(b) Total Number of CLRs application rejected for direct Recruitment Post MPW.
Page 3 of 8(c) Total number of CLRs applications is qualified as per eligible criteria Education qualification for direct Recruitment Post MPW and provide their names
(d) Total number of CLRs applications is unqualified as per eligible Education qualification criteria for direct Recruitment Post MPW and provide their names.
(e) Total Number of CLRs candidates' written exam for direct Recruitment Post MPW and their names
(f)Total number of CLRs candidates passed in exam for direct Recruitment Post MPW and their names
(g) Total number of CLRs candidates failed in exam for direct Recruitment Post MPW and their names.
(This RTI can prove it is a fake exam conducted by the management of PDL by assigned the Roll Number 1001 to R. Shanmugam and 1053 P. Tamizharasan as Roll Number for 53 CLRs only who are all worked in PDL as Daily Rated Casual Labourers, PDL Management conducted a fake exam only for the 53 CLRs, exam written only 53 CLRs and passed all the 53 CLRs and Regularized 53 CLRs.)
8. (a) Whether the Board of Directors/ the Director of Industries and Commerce gave approval for creation of Post 53 (MPW) (as per the Provision under item 73 (e) of the Articles of Association creation), (b) if yes kindly furnish the date of approval and (c) Furnish the copy of the approval of the Board creation of the 53 Multipurpose worker Post.
9. Name of the Public Information officer in Industries and Commerce replying this RTI in prompt manner
10. Name of the Public Information officer in Puducherry Distilleries Limited replying this RTI in prompt manner. Statement: W.P. 847/14 & WP.18561/15 High Court, Madras Additional Govt. Pleader Chennai requested the Counter affidavit from the Managing Director of PDL, in this regard under Secretary to Govt sent letter to the Secretary Industries and Commerce to arrange to file counter affidavit within a period of two weeks duly safeguarding the interest of Government Comprehensively, in this regard kindly furnish the following information, 11 Kindly furnish the copy of the counter affidavit submitted to court/the Director of Ind. & Com by the Managing Director of the Puducherry Distilleries Limited for the W.P. 847/14 & WP.18561/15.
Page 4 of 8Statement: For illegal daily rated Casual Labour engaged in PDL, in this regard public litigation case filled as W.P. 847/14 & WP.18561/15 and the court directed the government to frame a policy for engagement of Project based Casual labour and announced vide G.O Ms. No.15 dated 4th Feb 2021, which is applicable for Puducherry Distilleries Limited but the Managing Director Mr. G. Satchidanandam once again appointed a back door named C. Sathyakumari without the prior approval of the chief secretary in November 2021.in this connection kindly provide information,
12.(a) Provide the name of the Managing Director appointed Daily Rated Casual labour C.Sathyakumari.
(b) Provide information regarding the date of Joining of the Daily Rated casual labour C.Sathyakumari appointed daily rated Casual Labour.
(c) Provide information whether is there any prior permission obtained by the Managing Director Thiru. Satchidanandaham from the Chief Secretary before engaging the person C. Sathyakumari as per order LG announced vide G.O Ms. No.15 dated 4th Feb 2021?
(d) If yes kindly furnish the copy of the permission? (e) If no provide me the reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) why permission not obtained.
(f) Provide the name of the Managing Director appointed Daily Rated Casual labour C. Sathyakumari in November 2021 by violating the order of the LG vide G.O Ms. No.15 dated 4th Feb 2021 and high court order.
Point No. 8, and 9 pertains to the Director of Industries and commerce as well as PDL for Point No.8, so kindly furnish information in both sides. Because the director (Ind. & com.) is the one of the Board member without knowledge of the Director (Ind. & com.) the PDL management can't do recruitment, hence I am expecting reply from the PIO (Ind & Com).
It is pertinent to point out that the Persons who got the orders of appointment by resort to backdoor methods should be sent out through backdoor itself.- High Court."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.12.2022 stating as under:
"Please refer to your Right to Information Application dated 11.11.2021 forwarded by Deputy Director (ADMN), Directorate of Industries and Commerce and received by this organisation on 30.11.2022 under I.D. No. 1187. It is informed that the Information sought by the applicant is Vague, Voluminous which would involve vast resources of this Distillery Page 5 of 8 and in Contradictory manner, as want only disturbing the day-to-day activities of the administration of this organisation. Moreover, the Information sought for is not on larger public interest under RTI Act. Hence, Furnishing of Information sought by the Applicant does not arise."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.02.2023, held as under:
"Whereas the reply furnished by the PIO, PDL has been perused. The appellant has also filed earlier applications under RTI Act seeking similar information and replied to by the PIO then and there. The appellant nature of repeatedly seeking information of similar nature in a different form disturbing the functioning of the organization and such information is sought with no larger public interest. Indiscriminate and impracticable demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information in the functioning of public authorities would be counter productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-production work of collecting and furnishing information. The PDL is a Govt. of Pondicherry undertaking which is functioning harmoniously and the threat of penalties under RTI Act as mentioned in the appeal petition and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritizing "information furnishing" at the cost of their normal and regular duties. The reply of the PIO is upheld. The PIO may, however, furnish information point wise as available in the form in the records of PDL to the appellant within 15 days and no information in the form of opinion shall be furnished."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Egambaram, Consultant and Shri Ramesh K Assistant, appeared through video conference.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 09.08.2024 stating complete facts of the case and the relevant paras are reproduced as under:Page 6 of 8
"Thiru. R. Vijayasarathy, the appellant/Complainant is habitually/continuously filing several applications under Right to Information act, 2005 seeking information on certain subjects repeatedly which is not in larger public interest. He is seeking information with mala fide intention for his personal interest, in way of disturbing the day to day works and spoiling the decorum of the Management of this Institution.
2. I humbly submit that the Appellant is seeking information often to this organisation which is vague, voluminous and in Contradictory manner, as want only disturbing the day-to-day activities of the administration of this organisation.
3. Moreover, in respect of the information sought about the appointment of 53 Multipurpose Workers in PDL, it is submitted that the matter was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras (Writ Petition No. 40172 of 2015) during the time of information sought for. Now, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court had ordered on 12.07.2023, that the appointment of 53 MPWs were illegal and in compliance of the Hon'ble Court order, the 53 MPWs were terminated from services in PDL.
4. In respect of the engagement of Smt. C. Sathiyakumari as Casual Labour in PDL, it is submitted that her husband Thiru. B. Chandrasekar was working as Senior Operator, had deceased on 13.05.2021 due to Covid - 19. So, considering the pathetic and typical situation of the deceased employee's family, she was engaged as Daily Rated Casual labourer in PDL on compassionate ground with the approval of competent authority.
5. I also humbly submit that the Appellant/Complainant's RTI application is not in larger public interest and in a way to create mental agony to the Officials of the Management of PDL, disturbing the day to day works of PDL and in a manner of spoiling the decorum of the Company. It is very fact and clear that he misuses the RTI Act, 2005 for some unknown reason/reason known to him and not in larger public interest. Therefore, I am to request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission to dismiss the Second Appeal/ Complaint of Thiru. R. Vijayasarathy mentioned in the reference cited."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that reply given by Page 7 of 8 the respondent was incomplete and evasive. It is noted that point-wise reply has not been given to the appellant till the date of hearing. Moreover, a copy of the aforesaid written submission dated 09.08.2024 is not served to the appellant.
In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide the revised point- wise reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order. If any exemption under the RTI Act is claimed, the same should be justified by the respondent.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Puducherry Distilleries Limited, R.S. No. 144 145, Door No. 18, Ariyapalayam Village, Villianur, Puducherry - 605 110 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)