Central Information Commission
Battal Singh vs Quality Council Of India on 5 July, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/QCIND/A/2021/629651
Battal Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Quality Council of India, RTI
Cell, 2nd Floor, Institution
of Engineers Building, Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/07/2022
Date of Decision : 04/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/05/2021
CPIO replied on : 18/06/2021
First appeal filed on : 20/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 12/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.05.2021 seeking the following information:
"I have worked with NABL/QCI from 12.10.2015 to 31.03.2021 and I need following records:
1. Attested copies of all APAR for following years: -October 2015 to March 2016 -April 2016 to March 2017 -April 2017 to march 2018 -April 2018 to 1 march 2019 -April 2019 to March 2020 -Feedback of reporting and reviewing officer about my performance from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020
2. Complete minutes of NABL Board meeting held on 20.11.2018 Please provide me all information regarding the same as I mentioned above."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 18.06.2021 stating as follows :-
Point No. 1:- The copy of APARs for the period from 2015-2016 to 2019- 2020 are attached as Annexure. It may be noted that, as per Service and Finance Manual-2018 of QCI and guidelines approved by Governing Body of QCI, performance level of very Good & above in the APAR/performance feedback, is the pre-requirement for placing a case before Review Committee for its consideration. Regularization or otherwise is purely based on the recommendations of the duly constituted Review Committee based on personal interaction with the employee.
Point No. 2:- As per the policy of NABL, the minutes of NABL Board Meetings have been declared as confidential and the same has been mentioned on QCI website in the link:
https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ckdocs/Statement%20of%20the%20catego ries%20of%20documents%20held%20or%20under%20control.pdf.
It may be informed that, the recommendation of the NABL Board regarding change in nature of the sanctioned posts of NABL from contract to regular was considered by the Governing Body of QCI in its 53rd meeting held on 12.12.2018. The minutes of 53rd GB are available at the link:
https://qcin.org/minutes-of-gb."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2021. FAA's order dated 12.07.2021 held as under:-
"Point No. 1: Feedback of reporting and reviewing officer about my performance from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020 is not provided. Reply: The Feedback of Reporting and Reviewing officer taken on your performance from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020 was not part of APAR/annual appraisal process. This performance feedback was taken in a confidential manner for deciding your eligibility for consideration by Review Committee for regularization.2
Point No. 2: It is mentioned in the reply of RTI that as per the policy of NABL, the minutes of NABL Board Meetings have been declared as confidential and the recommendation of the NABL Board regarding change in nature of the sanctioned posts of NABL from contract to regular was considered by the Governing Body of QCI in its 53rd meeting held on 12.12.2018. The minutes of GB meetings of QCI are available on website then why the NABL board meeting minutes are kept confidential? as the decision regarding the sanctioned posts of NABL from contract to regular was taken in the NABL Board meeting held on 20.11.2018, which was subsequently considered by the 53rd GB Meeting of QCI held on 12.12.2018. The recommendations of NABL Board meeting held on 20.11.2018 are required to see the terms and conditions of regularization of sanctioned posts of NABL from contract to regular.
Reply: As per QCI Service & Finance Manual, Boards are functionally independent in terms of their technical functions. In this connection Boards can frame their own policies depending upon their operations & requirements. Hence, the minutes of the Board meetings are not uploaded in public domain as per the policy of NABL Board. Since technical functions and decisions have competitive edge over other Accreditation Bodies around the world, these decisions are kept confidential. Further, as per S & F manual, competent authority to decide on matters like nature of posts, conditions of regularisation, etc. is the GB and minutes of it has already been provided. Point No. 3: I am humbly requesting to provide the feedback of reporting and reviewing officer from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020 and complete minutes of NABL Board meeting held on 20.11.2018.
Reply: Same as Point No. 1 & 2 above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply against points no. 1 (partially) & 2 of RTI Application, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Dr. Hari Prakash, Director & CPIO present through intra-video conference.3
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that complete desired information except the copies of APAR has not been provided to him till date.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 29.06.2022, relevant portion of which is as under -
"...2. Copies of APAR for the period mentioned in Point No. (i) of RTI Application were provided to applicant.
3. However, feedback of reporting and reviewing officer was not a part of APAR/annual process and was taken in a confidential manner for deciding eligibility of applicant for consideration by Review Committee for regularization. Hence, Quality Council of India (QCI) was not able to provide the same to applicant being confidential information.
4. Nevertheless, applicant was informed through RTI reply "As per Service and Finance Manual, 2018 of QCI and guidelines approved by Governing Body of QCI, performance level of Very Good and above in the APAR/ performance feedback is pre- requirement for placing a case before Review Committee for its consideration. Regularization or otherwise is purely based on the recommendations of the duly constituted Review Committee based on personal interaction with the employee."
5. Further, regarding complete minutes of NABL Board meeting held on 20.11.2018, following facts are hereby apprised:
a. As per QCI Service & Finance Manual, Boards are functionally independent in terms of their Technical and financial/ budgetary function and can frame their own policies depending upon their operations and requirements. b. Since technical functions and decisions have competitive edge over other Accreditation Bodies around the world, these decisions are kept confidential. c. Accordingly, minutes of NABL board meetings are not uploaded in public domain and hence cannot be provided to applicant as per policy of NABL Board. d. Moreover, the minutes of NABL board meetings fall under non- disclosure document category of QCI and the same has been mentioned on QCI website under the following link:
https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ckdocs/statement%20of%20the%20categories%20of %20documents%20held%20or%20under%20control.pdf Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant on all the points of RTI Application in terms of RTI Act, except partially at point no. 1 where the information including the feedback of reporting/reviewing officers 4 concerning Appellant has been vaguely denied by the CPIO without substantiating the same under any relevant clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act. The only pertinent exemption from disclosure of such information appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the reviewing officer(s) which may be reflected on the notings/comments/reports and cannot be divulged considering the exemptions envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide relevant available information regarding the feedback of reviewing/reporting officer concerning Appellant only after redacting the names and identifying particulars of the officers, if any, which may figure in the notings/comments/feedback report keeping in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and can be severed in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid reply/information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5