Central Information Commission
P Vijayan vs Southern Railway on 24 September, 2021
CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353
In the matter of:
P Vijayan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/SPO/Rules, Southern Railway,
Head Quarters Office, Personnel Branch,
Chennai-600003
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 18.04.2019
CPIO replied on : 12.06.2019
First Appeal filed on : 04.06.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 24.07.2019
Second Appeal received on : 25.09.2019
Date of Hearing : 08.09.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri P. Vijayan, participated in hearing upon being contacted over his
telephone.
Respondent: Shri Anjani Kumar, Chief Inspector, RTI Cell, participated in
hearing through video conferencing from NIC Chennai.
Page 1 of 9
CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 18.04.2019 seeking information on the following four points:
"Sub: Request under RTI 2005 for the employees obtained employment in Southern Railway under Reservation Quota for SC/ST and other Information -- Reg.
I. kindly request your good self to issue me the Community Certificate of the person obtained employment in S.Rly- on reservation quota as follows:
1) Shri. R.Ramalingam S/o. Rathinam - Chief office Superintendent/ Labour Section/PCP0/0/HQ/MAS
2) Smt. Rani Raman Babu - CHOS/Sr. DSC/MAS
3) Shri.Punithakumar - Office Superintendent / PCPO/HQ/MAS
4) Shri.Arjunkumar - Chief Staff welfare Inspector/Sr. DPO/MAS
5) Shri.Kuppan - Office Superintendent/CME/Office/HQ
6) Shri. J.Kalpana - Chief Pharmacist Gr.I/RHJPER Chennai-23
7) Shri. R.M. Ravikumar S/o.Mariappan - SPO/Res/HQ/ S.Rly.
II. How many cases sent for community certificate verification to the State Level Scrutiny Committee from 01.01.2007 to 18.04.2019 by SPO/Res/S.Rly.
III. How many employees got Genuine Certificates from the SLSC, Tamilnadu. Remaining cases what action you have taken for safe and welfare of the SC/ST employees.
IV. As an officer, How many years can be should serve in one place without Transfer. Is there any standing order to continue the any official is one place more than three years."
Shri S. Janakiraman, SPO/Rules & PIO vide letter dated 12.06.2019 informed to the Appellant as under:
Page 2 of 9CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.07.2019, informed the Appellant that information sought in the RTI Application has already been provided vide letter dated 12.06.2019.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent. Upon being queried by the Commission to elaborate the point of discontentment, the Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of point no. 1 of the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and point-wise information has been provided to the Appellant. On being remarked by the Commission that the reply provided by the then CPIO with respect to point no. 2 and 4 of the RTI Application Page 3 of 9 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 is not appropriate, the Respondent concurred with the Commission and agreed to provide a revised reply with respect to the said points.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Appellant, vide letter dated 24.08.2021 and the same has been sent to the Respondent, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri M. Senthil Kumar, DCPO/Co-ord. and Appellate Authority, vide letter dated 01.09.2021 and the same has been sent to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 4 of 9
CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 Page 5 of 9 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 Page 6 of 9 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in point no. 1 of the instant RTI Application, has been rightly denied by the Respondent under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Therefore, an appropriate reply has been provided with respect to same. In this regard, the Commission relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal vide order dated 08.11.2013 in W.P.(C) 5812/2010, wherein it was held as under:
"5. In the present case, the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates. There is no finding by the Commission that it was in larger public interest to disclose the aforesaid personal information of the recommended candidates. Even in his application seeking information, the respondent did not claim that any larger public interest was involved in disclosing the aforesaid information. In the absence of such a claim in the application and a finding to this effect by the Commission, no direction for disclosure of the aforesaid personal information could have been given."
In addition, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Baljeet Singh v. The PIO, Industrial Training Institute, Jahangirpuri & Anr. vide order dated 01.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 776/2016 & CM. No. 3376/2016, held as under:
"11. In the case in hand, the respondent no.2 has sought the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The information is a personal information as the caste to which the petitioner belongs is an issue inter-se between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner i.e., between employer and employee and this aspect is governed by service rules. The disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. In fact, it is held so by a Coordinate Bench of this court in UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, W.P.(C) 5812/2010 decided on November 8, 2013."
Be that as it may, the Commission observes that though a categorical reply has been provided by the Respondent with respect to point no. 1 and 3 of the instant RTI Application, while the reply with respect to point no. 2 and 4 of the RTI Page 7 of 9 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 Application is not satisfactory. Hence, the Commission directs the present CPIO to provide revised reply on point no. 2 and 4 of the RTI Application to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove(अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 24.09.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 8 of 9 CIC/SORLY/A/2019/147353 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Dy. CPO/R&W,Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai-600003
2. The Central Public Information Officer /SPO/Rules, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai-600003
3. Shri P Vijayan Page 9 of 9