Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Kataria vs Centre For Cultural Resources And ... on 1 April, 2026
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CFCRT/A/2025/623598
Vinod Kumar Kataria ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Ministry of
Culture, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:
Second Appeal No. CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058
FA :
RTI : 11.03.2025 SA : 15.06.2025
20.04.2025/26.04.2025
CPIO : FAO :
Hearing : 05.03.2026
26.03.2025/17.04.2025 29.05.2025/16.05.2025
Second Appeal No. CIC/CFCRT/A/2025/623598
FA :
RTI : 11.03.2025 SA : 11.05.2025
20.04.2025/26.04.2025
CPIO : FAO :
Hearing : 05.03.2026
26.03.2025/17.04.2025 29.05.2025/16.05.2025
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Decision: 30.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
Page 1 of 12
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:
3. CPIO Administrative Ministry i.e. Ministry of Culture (Akademy Department)
(a) Provide the certified copy of the latest office memorandum or order issued on engagement of consultant on contract.
(b) Provide the certified copy of the list of officials engaged in Akademy Division as consultant on contract below the age of 65 years and above the age of 65 years.
(c) Provide the certified copy of details of projects and name of officials engaged in those projects by Akademy Division as consultant from 01.02.2019 to 28.02.2025.
Indian Postal Order bearing No 18G-388687 dated 11.03.2025 for Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) is enclosed as fees as per Act. Further, I am ready to pay the requisite fees for documents as per Act.
4. CPIO, CCRT
(a) Provide the certified copy of the list of officials engaged as consultants on contract below the age of 65 years and above the age of 65 years from 01.02.2019 to 28.02.2025.
(b) Provide the certified copies of the advertisements floated on engagement of consultants on contract from 01.02.2019 to 28.02.2025....etc.
2. The CPIO, Ministry of culture replied vide letter dated 26.03.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
a. It is attached as per annexure (i).Page 2 of 12
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 b. At present, no consultant is engaged in Akademi Division. Sh. Abhijit Chakrobarty, Consultant engaged in Akademi has resigned on 28.02.2025.
c. The information is not available with the Akademi Division.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.04.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.05.2025 observed as under:-
2. The appeal preferred by the appellant has been scrutinized and it has been found that all the relevant information as available with the Division has already been provided to him. Hence, the 1st Appeal is disposed herewith.
4. The CPIO, CCRT replied vide letter dated 17.04.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"..a and b : list provided c. to l : third party information will not be provided to the applicant as per exemption from disclosure of information of RTI Act Section 8(1)(j)..."
5. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA, CCRT vide order dated 16.05.2025 observed as under:-
2. As far, point No. 1 to 5 is concerned, it is intimated that it is in the nature of a complaint and does not seek any specific information under RTI Act. No violation of Section 7(1) and Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act is found in the alleged RTI Reply. The information provided by CPIO is correct and valid.
3. As far, point No. 6 is concerned, it is intimated that after perusing the section 19 (5) of RTI, Act, it has been observed that there was no denial of request from CPIO in the above mentioned matter and the CPIO has provided the Reply of your RTI Page 3 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 Request in time bound manner of RTI, Act. Therefore, the prayers sought by you are not applicable as per section 19(5) of RTI, Act.
4. Furthermore, your appeals are lengthy and you are advised to limit your application upto 500 words limit as per Section 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012 in gazette notification issued by DopT dated 31.07.2012.
5. If the appellant is not satisfied with this reply, he may file Second Appeal against this order with Central Information Commission.
6. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 11.05.2025 and 15.06.2025.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person along with Shri Ashok Kumar.
Respondent: Dr Rahul Kumar, Dy. Director, CCRT, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat, US, Shri Vinay Raheja, SO- participated in the hearing.
5. 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).Page 4 of 12
CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058
(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).
(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 Page 5 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 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-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.
Page 6 of 12CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 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.
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 Page 7 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 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.
(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 Page 8 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 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 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 Page 9 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 CCRT under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which will clear his mindset against corrupt practice and wilful misuse of public office..."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. A written submission dated 03.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..2. Point-wise submissions:
(a) The applicant sought a certified copy of the latest Office Memorandum/Order issued on engagement of consultant on contract.
Reply: The certified copy of the latest Office Memorandum/Order available on record regarding engagement of the concerned consultant was furnished to the applicant. The allegation that an unrelated document was supplied is not correct, as the document provided pertains to engagement on contract as available in the records of the Division. The copy of the order provided is enclosed.
(b) The applicant sought certified copies of details of projects and names of officials engaged in those projects by the Akademi Division as consultants from 01.02.2019 to 28.02.2025.
Reply: The applicant was informed that the information was not available with the Division. The query specifically pertained to projects undertaken by the Akademi Division. As no projects were undertaken by the Akademi Division, no such records exist. Hence, there was no information to furnish.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the reply was provided in a timely and point- wise response based strictly on the records available in the Division. There has been no denial of information that exists on record, nor any deliberate withholding information. of Page 10 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058
4. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the submissions of the respondent public authority may kindly be taken on record and the appeal may be disposed of accordingly..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by CPIO. It is noted that blanket denial on the ground of third-party information with respect to point No. c to l is not justified. Accordingly, the PIO, CCRT is directed to re-examine the RTI Application and furnish a revised reply with respect to points No. c'', 'l', 'm' and 'n' of the RTI Application within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report in this regard be filed with the Commission within a week thereafter. In doing, the PIO shall ensure that information which is exempted from disclosure should not be disclosed and same may be redacted as per the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act.
8. As regards the other points of the RTI Application, the Commission is of the opinion that an appropriate response has been provided to the Appellant. 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 Page 11 of 12 CIC/MCULT/A/2025/627058 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO under RTI, Under Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Culture, C.S.L., Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. CPIO under RTI, Section Officer-(RTI Section), Centre for Cultural Resources & Training-(CCRT) (Ministry of Culture), Plot No.-15-A, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
3 Vinod Kumar Kataria Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)