Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellant vide RTI application dated 16.07.2016 sought information on six points as under:

1. Copy of documents, circulars, policy, rules and regulations of NDDB services regarding promotion of employees (General and SC/ST).

2. Copy of the Roster of SC/ST employees regarding filling up of backlog vacancies through promotions and direct recruitment.

3. Reasons for non-transferring of Dr. S.S. Gill, Sr. Manager (HRD) during the last 18 years.

4. Reason for not promoting Ms. Seema Mathur, Manager (CS) NDDB, Noida for the last 8 years.

5. Copies of policies/rules/act of the DoPT, applied to the NDDB for promotion of the SC/ST employees and filling up of backlogs vacancies of SC/ST categories in the NDDB for the last 5 years.

6. Copies of appraisals/documents pertaining to the promotions sanctioned in respect of Ms. Anandita Badiya, Dr.Sujita Saha and Shri. Anil P. Patil who were appointed recently in the NDDB.

The CPIO replied on 16.08.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 31.08.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 26.09.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 15.12.2016.

On perusal of the case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant on point no. 1 of the said RTI application. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant as all the sought for information is eminently disclosable under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act i.e. Copies of relevant circulars, policies, rules and regulations of NDDB regarding promotion of employees for General and SC/ST category should be provided to the appellant. On point no. 2, copies of roaster registers for the year 2015-2016 of SC/ST employees regarding filing of the backlog posts through promotions and direct recruitments should be provided. The sought for information on point nos. 3 and 4 are not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, hence the same cannot be provided. The sought for information on point no. 6 is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The information provided by the respondent authority on point no. 5 of the above stated RTI application was considered to be proper by the Commission and that the appellant was also satisfied with the same.