Central Information Commission
Ashvath Kumar G vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 24 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MORLY/C/2023/626842
Ashvath Kumar G ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.09.2024
Date of Decision : 23.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2022
CPIO replied on : 30.08.2022, 01.09.2022, 03.02.2023,
23.05.2023 & 26.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 30.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"(i) How many RRB/RRC exams have been conducted from the year 2000 to till date with (year wise) categorization like RRB JE, ALP, group D, etc. of all regions.Page 1 of 8
(ii) How many vacancies were notified for the aforesaid categories for the said time frame and how many were selected respectively.
(iii) What was/is the lowest cut-off marks scored by a selected candidate for every category of examination and classify with reservation status including general for the same.
(iv) If final merit list is available for all the said examinations of all the duration then provide it.
(v) Did railway board/Ministry of railways issued any order for cancelling recruitment via RRB SSE examination if yes kindly share the same otherwise provide how vacancies for SSE arising due to promotion/retirement/resignation were filled up.
(vi) What is the process to apply for transfer of job from one region to another if permitted along with conditions to be satisfied.
(vii) How selected candidates for various posts via RRB/C(s) are promoted (eg via LDCE) etc and eligibility for the same. The maximum post which they can attain for different categories of posts with applicable reservation if any.
(viii) With re-designating Group A officers as managers via IRMS recruitment (by civil services exam) and merging of various departments how will the management of technical section/department take place provided there is only requirement of education qualification as any graduation and not specific as (Degree in engineering) for the same.
(ix) If a selected candidate for IRMS has qualification other than engineering and handles the department where production/maintenance/R&D activities are carried out either in zonal or workshop, RDSO, etc. under their supervision then who will assure the competency of the officer and safety of trains, tracks, equipment, etc.
(x) How the proposed privatization process of railways will take place, mention in detail including changes in functioning (operation, management etc.)
(xi) Does Group D category of employees still exist or merged with Group C, if merged provide the copy of circular/Gazette effecting the same."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03-02-2024 stating as under:
Page 2 of 8"w.r.t. item nos. (viii) & (ix) of your RTI application dated 31.07.2022 received in this office on 02.08.2022, it is stated that the query raised is interrogatory/clarificatory/advisory in nature and does not fall under the definition of - information and right to information - as per section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Besides, as per Central Information Commission ruling in case No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006 in the matter of Dr. D.V. Rao Vs Yashwant Singh, it was ruled that, It is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, question to the public authorities about the nature and quality of their action. The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in the case, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. Besides, only such information is required to be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005 which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information, or to interpret information, or to explain the queries raised by the applicants."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03-02-2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03-02-2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Vibhuti Narain Singh, CPIO-46, Ms. Uma Subramanian, CPIO- 33 and Shri Sudipta Sen, Dy. Direct/E (RRB), Shri U.K. Tiwari, Dir.Estt, Shri Sanjay Kumar, DDE, Sudhir Kumar, SO, E (GR) and Shri Ajay Goyal, SO-I, New Delhi appeared in person.
The complainant, while reiterating the facts of the case inter alia submitted that partial information was provided by the respondent. He requested the Commission to take necessary action against the concerned CPIO for not providing the complete information as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 8Shri Sudipta Sen, Dy. Direct/E (RRB), New Delhi while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought on point Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application pertained to him and he had already replied to the complainant through RTI MIS Portal on 30.08.2022. A copy of the reply is placed on record. The CPIO's reply dated 30.08.2022 is reproduced as under:
"1, 2, 3, 4. All the information since 2010 is available on official website of Railway Recruitment Boards. Further, information before 2010 pertains to 21 Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs) located all over the country. In terms of DOPTS Office Memorandum No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008, you are advised to directly approach these 21 RRBs."
Shri Vibhuti Narain Singh, CPIO-46, Railway Board, New Delhi filed written submission dated 06.09.2024 explaining facts of the case which is reproduced as under:
"Shri Ashvath Kumar G vide his RTI application bearing reference No. MORLY/R/E/22/03219 dated 31.07.2022 had sought information on 11 points wherein only item No. (xi) was pertaining to PC Dte under CPIO-
46. The said RTI application of Shri Ashvath Kumar G was not received earlier in the office of CPIO-46 at initial stage.
ii. Subsequently. Shri Ashvath Kumar G had preferred first appeal (No. MORLY/A/E/22/00750), a copy of which was received in the office CPIO-
46. The same was promptly dealt with and requisite information/copies of relevant documents, as regards to item No. (xi) of the RTI Application. were duly furnished to the appellant vide CPIO-46's letter dated 26.05.2023 (copy enclosed) Position w.r.t. item No (xi) of the RTI Application pertaining to this CPIO, as furnished to the appellant 26.05.2023 still holds good and there are no additional information/documents which can be shared with the appellant at this stage."
The respondents further submitted that they had already provided information on point No. 11 of the RTI application vide letter dated 26.05.2023, copy of the same is reproduced as under:
Page 4 of 8"It is stated that with respect to the information sought vide Item No. (xi) of your initial RTI application, copies of documents as mentioned below are enclosed herewith which are self-explanatory.
(i) Relevant extracts of Chapter 3.7 of 6th CPC report.
(ii) Relevant extracts of Note 1 below Rule 7(1)(D) of RS(RP) Rules, 2008 notified vide GSR No. 643 (E) dated 04.09.2008.
(iii) Board's letter No. E(MPP)/2008/3/17 dated 24.09.2008.
(iv) Board's letter No. PC-VI/2008/1/3/1 dated 29.10.2008.
(v) Board's letter No. PC-VI/2009/1/1/3(Vol. II) dated 27.12.2018 (RBE No. 201/2018).
(vi) Board's letter No. PC-VII/2016/1/7/1 dated 28.09.2017 (RBE No. 140/2017).
(vii) Board's letter No. PC-VII/2017/RSRP/2 dated 17.01.2023 (RBE No. 16/2023). "
Shri U K Tiwari, the CPIO & Dir. Estt. (N), Railway Board, vide letter dated 09.09.2024 submitted as under:-
As per Section 2(f) read with 2fi) of RTI Act, 2005, seeking of views/opinion / interpretations/ clarification/ information not available in material form etc. does not come under the purview of information as admissible under the Act. With regard to item No.(i), (ii), (iii), & (iv), it is stated that in terms of DoP&T guidelines contained in their letter No.10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 when information is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. Accordingly, above position was appraised to the applicant through online reply given on 01.09.2022. Further, in respect of Item No. (v), the information was provided through Speed Post vide letter dated 02.05.2023 (copy enclosed). Reply to Item No. (i) to (iv)(part) was also provided by other concerned CPIO viz. DE/RRB online on 30.8.2022 (Copies enclosed). In view of the above complete information in respect of above items has already been provided.Page 5 of 8
Ms. Uma Subramanian, CPIO-33, vide letter dated 05.09.2024 filed written submission which is reproduced as under:
(i) "Shri Ashvath Kumar G vide his RTI application bearing reference No. MORLY/R/E122/O32L913 dated 31.07.2022 (received by this CPIO on O2.O8.2O22I, had sought information on 11 points. As regards Point No. 8 and 9 of the RTI application pertaining to E(GR)I Branch/CPIO-
33, dealing with matters related to IRMS, reply was furnished to the applicant vide Board's letter dated 3O.O8.2O22 (copy enclosed) stating that query raised is interrogatory/clarification/advisory in nature and does not fall under the definition of information and right to information as per section 2(0 and 20) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Not being satisfied with reply furnished, the applicant registered 1"t Appeal vide ID No MORLY/A/E/2022/00728 on 30.O8.2O22 citing reason as refused access to information requested'. The said appeal was received in this office on 18.04.2O23 and was disposed of by EDE(GC) & FAA by giving a suitable reply to the appellant vide Board's letter dated 02.05.2023 (copy enclosed).
(iii) Position w.r.t Point No. 8 and 9 pertaining to this CPIO, as furnished to the appellant on 30.08.2022 still holds good and the same is reiterated."
The respondent further submitted that they had already provided information on point No. 10 of the RTI application on 23.05.2023 as under:
There is no proposal to privatize the Indian Railways. However, to unleash faster development and completion of track, rolling stock manufacturing and delivery of passenger freight services, Ministry of Railways under various schemes of Public Private Partnership (PPP) attract investment in various areas viz. network expansion, setting up of locomotive factories, induction of railway wagons, station development, building freight terminals, etc. from the stake) holders and strategic investors. Further, outsourcing of certain services like station cleaning, pay and use toilets, retiring rooms, parking and asset maintenance etc. is being done on need based manner to improve these services.
Decision Page 6 of 8 The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply has been given by the respondents vide letters dated 30.08.2022, 01.09.2022, 03.02.2023, 23.05.2023 and 26.05.2023. The complainant submitted that only partial information was provided by the respondents.
However, he failed to explain as to how the reply given by the respondents were incomplete.
Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the complainant has sought voluminous information from the different CPIOs of the respondent public authority. The respondents have provided the information/reply as per the records available with them.
It is noted that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Perusal of the records reveals that there was some delay in providing the replying to the complainant. The respondents tendered unconditional apology for the delay caused in the matter. It is further observed that since, the information is held by the various CPIOs, therefore, it took some time to provide replies on all the points of the RTI application. No mala fide is established on part of the respondent while replying the RTI application. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant complaint.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)