Central Information Commission
Prafulla Ashok Ramteke vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 30 August, 2022
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
File no.: - CIC/BSNLD/A/2021/617171
In the matter of
Prafulla Ashok Ramteke
... Appellant
VS
DGM Admin & CPIO,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,
O/o CGMT, Maharashtra Telecom Circle,
RTI Section 4th floor, A wing,
BSNL Admin Complex , Santacruz West Mumbai - 110054
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/12/2020 CPIO replied on : 12/01/2021 First appeal filed on : 18/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 11/02/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 04/05/2021 Date of Hearing : 30/08/2022 Date of Decision : 30/08/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Kailash Moore, DGM & CPIO alongwith Victor, both present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of the transfer requests received in the Cadre of JTO for transfer to Tenure Stations, in case of Recruiting Units and Non-Recruiting units (from 01/01/2019 to till date).
2. Provide copies of the transfer requests received in the Cadre of JTO for transfer from Tenure Stations, in case of Recruiting Units and Non-Recruiting units (from 01/01/2019 to till date).1
3. Provide the list of candidates whose transfer requests were accepted and list of candidates whose transfer requests were rejected with the grounds/ruling for accepting or rejecting the request.
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 as rather than providing the available information, he was asked to inspect the records which was never asked for and for the rest of the points, the relevant information was not given.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 12.01.2021.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on points no. 1 to 6, the CPIO in his reply had stated that the information is in bulk format. In view of utmost shortage of staff in post VRS scenario, the applicant may visit the office during office working hours as per his convenience with valid ID card and prior intimation. The requested files under reference of the RTI case will be made available to the applicant, the requested information may be sought from the file. The appellant is aggrieved as according to him the information should have been provided to him rather than asking him to inspect the records. However, what is noted by the Commission is that the information sought on all these points is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and therefore no relief can be provided on these points. With regard to the rest of the points, a proper reply has been given. Hence, no further relief can be given.
Decision:
In view of the above, no relief can be given on any of the points raised in the RTI application.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
2
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