Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Kataria vs Centre For Cultural Resources And ... on 1 April, 2026
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CFCRT/A/2025/619178
Vinod Kumar Kataria ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Centre for Cultural
Resources & Training-(CCRT) ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
(Ministry of Culture), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
Complaint : 09.03.2025,
RTI : 28.12.2024 FA : Not on record
27.04.2025
CPIO : 30.01.2025 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 05.03.2026
Date of Decision: 30.03.2026
The aforementioned cases have been clubbed together for final hearing and disposal
as they arise out of the same RTI Application.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2024 seeking information on the following points:
3. CPIO Administrative Ministry i.e. Ministry of Culture Page 1 of 11 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
(a) Please provide the details of revival taken by CCRT in accordance with Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Office Memorandum No. 7(1)/E.Coord-1/2017 dated 12.04.2017 issued Compendium of instructions for Creation, Revival, Continuation and Transfer of post since 2017 through Administrative Ministry i.e. MoC, before advertising to file up the vacant Group 'B' & 'C' Posts in mission mode in Employment News, Weekly (21-27 September 2024) vide Advertisement No. CCRT/11011/07/2024/04.
(b) Please provide the status of my complaint dated 20.09.2024 sent for Cancellation of Advertisement No. CCRT/11011/07/2024/04 published by CCRT in Employment New dated 20.09.2024 for recruitment of various post.
(c) Please provide the sanction letter of Administrative Ministry i.e. MoC that permit Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Director (AKAM), MoC, who is looking after the additional Charge of the post of Director CCRT as a stop-gap arrangement for a short period is authorised to fill up the vacant post at large in CCRT in mission mode in violation to DoPT OM No. 4/4/49-Estt. (Pay- II) dated 28.01.2000 against the Advertisement No. CCRT/11011/07/2024/04 published by CCRT in Employment News, Weekly (21-27 September 2024) for recruitment of various Group -'B' & 'C' Posts in mission mode.
Indian Postal Order bearing No 65F 102962 dated 28.12.2024 for Rs.10/-(Rupees Ten only) is enclosed as fees as per Act. Further, I am ready to pay the requisite fees for documents as per Act...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
a. Information not available in CCRT.
b. Information not available in CCRT c. Shri Rajeev Kumar had been given additional charge of Director, CCRT vide letter no. Ministry of Culture Order No. Akd.-16/23/2022-Akad/147 Did Page 2 of 11 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630 05.02.2024 and therefore, as per service Bye-laws, Director is the Competent Authority for recruitment of Group B & C Posts)
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant /Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal dated 16.12.2024, 27.04.2025.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant/Complainant : Present in person along with Shri Ashok Kumar.
Respondent: Dr. Rahul Kumar, Dy. Director, CCRT, Shri Vinay Kumar Tarun, US and Ms Bhavya Gulati, SO- participated in the hearing.
4. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided by the CPIO. He reiterated the averments made in his written submission dated 01.03.2026. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..2. That fact of corrupt practices and wilful misuse of public office by CCRT officials came out in light in Preliminary Enquiry conducted on the direction of Hon'ble Lokpal of India and from the Audit Report of DGACR.
(a) Shri Surender Kaul, D.G./Director did not have the essential qualification at the time of his appointment to the post of D.G./Director and copy of the file noting, and correspondence portion related to his appointment to the post of DG/Director is not available. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(b) Shri G.C. Joshi did not have the essential qualification at the time of his appointment to the post of Dy Director/Director. He stands superannuated from the service. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).Page 3 of 11
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
(c) Mr. S.B. Verma did not have the essential qualifications at the time of his appointment to the post of Video Editor on 21.02.1995, he was simply Intermediate (12th Class). However, the selection committee in its meeting held on 03.02.1995 recommended Mr. S.B Verma for appointment for the post of Video Editor. He stands superannuated from the service on 31.01.2026 in PB-3 15600-39100 GP-7600). (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India).
(d) Rishi Kumar Vashist appointment in CCRT, from which organization he was called for interview to the post of DD (Publication) is not known to CCRT but he was appointed direct recruitment appointee in CCRT with having the essential qualification. (Here CCRT violated Art-309 of the Constitution of India)
(c) CCRT accepted that CCRT is not member registered with asry Pension Trust or Pension Regulatory Authority, Govt. of India but giving pension as per the direction of Ministry of Culture.
(1) CCRT accepted in Audit that CCRT had converted CPF Scheme into GPF Scheme as per its own whims and fancies without following the due process as per Las
(g) Advance Increment to Y Chandersekhar. CCRT accepted that Mr. Y Chandra Sekhar was on a deputation from A.P. Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad. He was absorbed in CCRT on 01.01.2010 and was given five advance increments as per Rule 22 of CCRT Byelawa. It is pertinent to mention that the New Pension Scheme (in short NPS) was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004 vide the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) notification No 5/7/2003 PR dated 22/12/2003, whereas he was paid pension after retirement by CCRT as per its own whims and fancies in Old Pension Scheme (in short OPS). Para 2 Audit remarks in the absence of the Ministry of Culture-
Page 4 of 11CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630 approved Service Bye Laws of CCRT for the yeur 1987, audit couldn't ascertain whether the grant of five advance incremems granted to Sh Y Chandra Sekhar aligns with approved Service bye laws. It is pertinem to mention that Rule 22 of CCRT Byelaws says that advance increments in the case of direct recruits to any category of posts, the Executive Committee Chairman may grant up to five advance increments on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Here CCRT had violated its own Service Byelaws Rule-22
(h) With regard to Shri Yashpal Rangi, as per CCRT reply the presence of Shri Yashpal Raurs in the court is not in the knowledge of CCRT and hence CCRT cannot comment on the same. It is pertinent to mention that statement is to sort from CCRT with whose approval CCRT has paid the huge amount of fees in lakhs to private counsel Sh. Yashpal Rangi from public fund.
(1) It is admitted by CCRT that Mr. Rajesh Bhatnagar Ex-DD (Fin) was retired on 31.07.2020 and his stal period of service in terms of extension reemployment is exccoding the limit of 2 years, his further extension beyond 2 years is violation of rule 17(m) of service bye laws for which CCRT has given relaxation under Rule-64 service bye laws for extension upto 31.01.2024 (Total 13 Years (16 Months). Here CCRT had openly violated FR-56 (d) anl its own Service Bye Law @ It is admitted by CCRT that Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director was retired on superannuation on 31.01.2023 and the extension of Mr. Vashist was done as per Rule 17(ii) and Rule 64 of the Service Bye-laws of CCRT. Here CCRT had openly violated FR-56 (d). Till date on temporary basis the post of Director CCRT since 01.02.2024 is run by Mr. Rajeev Kunar as Director CCRT un ad-hoc hasis.
Page 5 of 11CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630 It is admitted by CCRT that De Rahul Kumar gave technical resignation on 01.07.2019. It is a fact that in his relieving order no mention of the lien by CCRT Office has been done but subsequently Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director CCRT issued him an office order. No CCRT/1102/01/2010/24A dated 01.10.2019 on back date for keeping his lien to the post of Field Officer for a period of two years. Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director CCRT issued him a letter CCRT/1011/02/2021 dated 25-11-2019 stating that Dr. Rahaul Kumar is required so join as Field Officer in CCRT before joining as Deputy Director (General). His joining in CCRT as Deputy Director (General) will be effective after he joins as Field Officer. He was given promotion of Deputy Director (General) in Composite Method under promotion. It is pertinent to mention that record is to be asked from R-8 regarding his joining as Field Officer in CCRT. Para 4 Audit remarks Mr. Rahul Kumar, currently serving as Deputy Director at CCRT, was relieved from CCRT on July 4,2019, to join IGNCA after securing the position of Research Officer. Notably, there is no documentation of a lien entry in his service record, despite Mr. Rahul Kumar being granted a lien according to order no CCRT/11012/0l/2010/24A dated 01.10.2019. The same may be reviewed at the level of competent authority.
3. That fact of corrupt practices and wilful misuse of public office by CCRT officials came out in light in illegal recruitment of Field Officer post.
(a) Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director, CCRT had published the advertisement in Employment News on 19-06-2021 (i.e. Saturday) for appointment to Eight (08) posts of Field Officer, Group "B" in Pay Matrix Level 7 (Rs.44,900-1,42,400) by Direct Recruitment with All India Service Liability.
Page 6 of 11CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
(b) Mr. Rishi Kumar Vashist Ex-Director, CCRT without issue of any corrigendum of cancellation again published the advertisement in Employment News on 21.01.2023 and invites applications to fill up the Nine (9) posts of Field Officers, Group 'B' Level-7, in pay matrix Rs. 44900- 142400/- as per 7 CPC on Direct Recruitment and Promotion at CCRT, New Delhi.
(c) After a gap of more than one-year Mr. K Sankar Lingam Ganesh (R-
12) uploaded the list of provisionally shortlisted and not shortlisted applicants on 28.03.2024 in CCRT website. The list of candidates not shortlisted for FO post, Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.19); Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.58) and Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.113).
(d) CCRT officials had formed second Scrutiny Committee without any corrigendum as per its own whims and fancies without any justification placed the applicants/candidates who were not shortlisted for the post of Field Officer by the first Scrutiny Committee in shortlisted applicants/candidates category, the details was uploaded in the CCRT website in September 2024. List of candidates shortlisted for FO- Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.19); Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.58) and Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.113) thereafter result of FO was uploaded in the CCRT website where the candidates not selected by the first scrutiny committee were declared successful their names were Mr. Anuj Kumar Bajpai (S.No.4, in Un-reserved Category); Mr. Chandramauli Tripathi (S.No.1, in Un-reserved Category) and Ms. Julesha Siddharth Wankhade (S.No.1, in SC Category). Here CCRT has violated Article 309, DoPT OM No. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006 and DoPT OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020.
(e) It is submitted that DoPT OM No. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006 clarified in the light of a constitution bench of the Supreme Page 7 of 11 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630 Court in civil appeal No. 3595- 3612/1999 etc. in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and others has reiterated that any public appointment has to be in terms of the Constitutional scheme in para 2 that if such appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.
(f) It is submitted that DoPT OM No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020 clarified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgement dated 10.04.2006 in case of Uma Devi that (a) para 2(ii) filling of vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage. or other considerations (b) para 2(iv) Regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 & 309 of the Constitution of India, or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
4. It is submitted that my above said Appeals/Complaints are self- explanatory to proof that Dr. Rahul Kumar Deputy Director & CPIO CCRT is habitual in offending Section 6(2); Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that to cover the corrupt practices of CCRT and wilful misuse of public office where he himself directly or indirectly involves, wilfully misusing the Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is humbly requested before the Hon'ble CIC to call the record from CCRT since November 2019 to till date where Dr. Rahul Kumar Deputy Director & CPIO CCRT, had/have given the reply against RTI applications filed in CCRT under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which will clear his mindset against corrupt practice and wilful misuse of public office..."
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been provided to the Appellant. A written submission has been received Page 8 of 11 CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630 from the CPIO, Ministry of Culture and same has bene taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..As far as reply of RTI is concerned, the then CPIO of the Akademies Division, Ministry of Culture, Shri Nadeem Ahmad vide letter dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-II), informed the applicant that the RTI application was transferred to CPIO, CCRT in respect of points (a) and (b) under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, and enclosed the reply in respect of point (c) The CPIO, Ministry of culture provided reply dated 08.01.2025 as under:
Please refer to your RTI application dated 28.12.2024 and to inform that the RTI is transferred to Centre for Cultural Resources and Training for the part
(a) and (b). The reply of the part (c) is enclosed here..."
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing parties and perusal of records, observes that the main premise of instant cases is non- furnishing of complete information by the CPIO. Perusal of records reveal that reply furnished with respect to point No. 'b' which was addressed to PIO, Ministry of Culture has not been provided to the Appellant. It is noted that at the aforementioned point the Applicant had sought action taken on his complaint dated 20.09.2024. The same was transferred to the PIO, CCRT vide letter dated 08.01.2025 by the CPIO, Ministry of Cuture. Further the CPIO CCRT, has stated in the reply dated 30.01.2025 that the information is not available in their records. It is noted that during hearing the Applicant stated that the complaint was filed with the Ministry of Culture. Accordingly, the CPIO, Ministry of Culture is directed to furnish a revised reply with respect to point No. 'b' of the RTI Application and furnish action taken on Applicant 's complaint dated 20.09.2024. In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO may invoked section 5(4) of the RTI Act and should procure and provide the same to the Appellant.
Page 9 of 11CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
7. The said direction of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
8. With respect to other points of the RTI Application, the Commission is of considered opinion that an appropriate response has been provided by the PIO. The Second Appeal No. CIC/CFCRT/A/2025/619178 is disposed of, accordingly.
9. As regards the Complaint No. CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Complaint is disposed off, accordingly.
The matters are disposed of accordingly Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO under RTI, Deputy Director & CPIO, Centre for Cultural Resources & Training-(CCRT) (Ministry of Culture), Plot No.-15-A, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.Page 10 of 11
CIC/CFCRT/C/2025/611630
2. CPIO under RTI, Under Secretary-(RTI/Admin.) & CPIO, Ministry of Culture, RTI/Administration Section, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3 Vinod Kumar Kataria Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)