Central Information Commission
R Vishnu vs Isro Headquarters, Bengaluru on 4 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ISROH/C/2023/630566
Shri R VISHNU निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
ISRO Headquarters, Bengaluru
Date of Hearing : 23.08.2024
Date of Decision : 23.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.11.2022
PIO replied on : 23.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 23.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 29.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1. "At present which DOS order is applicable for Technical officer category for the selection to the post of Sci/Engr category through special review? Please provide the copy of that order.
2. Whether the Technical Officer-D (TO-D') in Level-11 who acquired B.E/M.E qualification is eligible for special review? What are the eligibility criteria for TO-D to screen in special review?
3. Which post TO-'D' will be considered for special review, either Sci/Engr-'SD' in equal pay Level-11 or Sci/Engr-'SC' in lower pay Level-10?
4. As per which order TO-'C' is considered for special review for selection to the post of Sci/Engr- 'SC' (Level-10)? Whether TO-'C' is a lower grade or equal grade than Sci/Engr-SC? Please provide copy of that order.
5. Which rule states, a TO-'D' can be denied for special review for selection to the post of Sci/Engr- 'SC' by considering Level-11 (Higher level) in pay matrix as the ineligibility criterion? Please provide copy of that order.
Page 1
6. Is it mandatory for a TO-'C' (Level-10) to skip/delay/lail the departmental promotion (TO-'D', Level- 11) to become eligible for special review of 'SC' (Level-
10)?.
7. II TO-'C' is considered, why TO-'D' having higher experience & superior than TO-
C is not eligible for special review for Sci/Engr posts.
8. Whether a TO-'D' (L-11) can be considered for special review for lower pay level (L-10) post Sci/Engr-SC on his own request?"
The Sr. Head/CPIO, ISRO Headquarters, Bengaluru vide letter dated 23.12.2022 replied as under:-
Point No. 1:- DOS OM No.HQ:ADMN:4.20(3) dated 06.02.1981 & No.HQ:ADMN:A.20(3) dated 10.08.1998 are followed for selection to the post of Sci/Engr SC through Special review. Copies of 2 OM's attached. Point No. 2:-As per the extant orders Scientist/Technical personnel acquiring MSc/BE/BTech qualification, their as additional case will be considered for SC grade under special review if they are in a grade lower than SC grade. Point No. 3:-As per the prevailing orders, Special review for the post of Sci/Engr- SD will be as: -
• Those in Sci/Engr -SC on acquiring ME/MTech while in service, on completion of 2 years of acquiring the degree.
• Those in Sci/Engr SC on - acquiring PhD as additional qualification. Sci/Tech personnel who acquire PhD will be considered for Sci/Engr-SD. Point No. 4:-A copy of the clarification as issued to VSSC with the approval of CA is enclosed.
Point No. 5:- Please refer to Para-2 of the enclosed HQ OM No.HQ:ADMN:A.20 (3) dated 10.08.1998.
Point No. 6:-The eligibility for normal DPC & Special review are not interrelated. Point No. 7:-As per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, information in the form of opinion, clarification, advice, justification or drawing inference of public authority need not be provided. Hence the query does not come under the purview of RTI Point No. 8:-As per the extant orders, under Special Reviews, there is no provision for considering an official in the higher grade to a lower grade."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 29.03.2023 stated as under:-
"3.The contents of the application, reply furnished by CPIO, ISRO HQ and the appeal have been examined. I am of the opinion that, reply/information furnished by CPIO, ISRO HQ is in order. However, CPIO, ISRO HQ is directed to provide available information, if any, to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order subject to 'severability clause; u/s 10 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is decided accordingly."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent/CPIO: Mrs Vandana, Sr Admin officer, ISRO (HQ) &CPIO The Appellant stated that incorrect/ unsatisfactory reply was given to him by the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that the appellant has been provided with the information available in material form.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
Page 3 XXX "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally. N In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that 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.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)