Central Information Commission
Msanuradha T vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 7 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002725/9167
07 December 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Anuradha T
R/o - 84, Jawahar Rail Colony,
Sikh Road, Secunderabad, TS - 500009.
Respondent : CPIO/ Addl. GM(MIS)
BSNL
Corporate Office
Room No - 29, I R Hall,
Eastern Court, Janpath,
New Delhi - 110001
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2014
PIO replied on : 18/09/2014
First appeal filed on : 08/10/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 12/11/2014
Second Appeal dated : 24/11/2014
Information sought:
1. While framing of 1996 recruitment for promotion to the cadre of TES Gr. B, why the provision of inter se seniority was not included, when the same was part of the previous 1981 RR.
2. While framing of 2002 recruitment rules, how the same mistake was replaced.
3. Even while fixing the seniority based on DOT letter No. 15-16/2000-STG.II dated 12/01/2005, why the lapses were not figured out.
4. When there was no mention of inter se seniority in the RRs, on what basis the seniority of the competitive batches was fixed.
5. Sri Sadasivan filed the case in Mumbai CAT in the year 2009. When it was learnt that case has been filed in Mumbai CAT, why efforts were not made to issue amendments to the 1996 & 2002 RRs.
6. Whether any action has been initiated against the responsible officers for the lapses in the framing of 1996 & 2002 RRs. If not why?
7. How the BSNL administration would correct the mistakes and compensate the LDCE candidates for the injustice meted out to them due to the lapses on part of the BSNL administration in framing of the 1996 & 2002 RRs.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Page 1 of 2 Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. H S Rawat ACPIO & Mr. K Rambabu The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing but she is absent. The ACPIO stated that from a plain reading of the appellant's RTI application dated 01/09/2014 it is apparent that she is asking for information of interrogatory nature/seeking reasons for not including inter-se seniority of promotees and competitive quota for SDE (T) in RR 2002 but her questions are not covered by the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. To a query, the ACPIO submitted that no reasons as sought by the appellant are found recorded in the files.
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish information/documents as available on record; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
As regards furnishing of reasons under section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, it is seen that a Coordinate bench of this Commission in its decision dated 18/06/2008 file no. CIC/AT/A/2007/01298 (V A Shah vs. central excise department) has lucidly explained as under:
"7. However, it would be a fallacy to conclude that all public authorities are obliged to provide post facto reasons to the RTI petitioners in all administrative and quasi judicial matters previously decided. The right of a citizen to get information from a public authority is conditioned by Section 2(f) subject to exemption Sections of the RTI Act. To further elaborate it, it would be impossible for any public authority to give reasons for the administrative/quasi judicial decisions taken by them in the past because it would virtually amount to asking the present incumbent to read the mind of that authority which passed or took the decision, at an earlier point of time. The reasons for any decision are those as may be found in the body of the decision itself, or from the file in which that decision was made. This is what Section 4(1)(d) implies."
The ACPIO has submitted that no reasons have been found to be recorded in the files for not including inter-se seniority of promotees and competitive quota for SDE (T) in RR 2002. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass her case/contest the CPIO's submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2