CIC: With respect to the six missing pages in the file, the CIC directs an Enquiry to be conducted to examine the cause behind such untraceable papers; The enquiry report should be submitted before the CIC within three weeks of receipt of this order
Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 05.10.2016 the appellant sought following information:
1. All the concerned files related to promotional post of Xerox Operator including those which were done in the years 2007, 2008 and 2016.
2. Specific details and reasons for deviating from the precedence of conducting skill test for the promotional post of a Xerox Operator in the year 2016.
In the reply dated 14.10.2016, CPIO stated that applicant may inspect the relevant files/ records in Section in the presence of PIO on 24.10.2016. Dissatisfied with the reply received from CPIO, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority dated 25.11.2016. FA Order dated 19.12.2016 directed PIO to provide certified copy of page nos. 2-8 of this file to applicant or provide the information to the applicant that page nos. 2-8 in file no. A. 12025/6/95-GAS are missing through the Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the reply received from FAA, the appellant approached the Commission.
Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 22.02.2016, the appellant sought information regarding the note- sheet concerning the amount of honorarium for those who were involved in the AHS (CAB) project, submitted by Prof. K. Kalaivani on 27.04.2015 to DD (Admin) and six other points.
CPIO reply dated 03.03.2016 was as follows:
Query no. 2 & 3- appellant can inspect the relevant file.
Query no. 4- in the RTI Act, PIO is required to furnish only the material information available under custody. Classification on hypothetical case is not covered under the scope of RTI Act. As such, PIO has no information sought.
Query no. 5 & 6- specific information sought is to be specified and the appellant was allowed to inspect the relevant files.
Dissatisfied with CPIO reply the appellant approached FAA dated 22.04.2016.
FA Order dated 23.03.2016 directed that the information about above points 1 to 5 should be provided by the concerned Deemed PIOs within 15 days of issue of this order.
Dissatisfied with the reply given by FAA the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and appellant states that information against query no. 3 were not provided. The appellant states that both his cases arise out of his grievance for denial of promotion. He states that earlier promotions were based on Trade Test however, in his case, the policy itself stood modified and was changed to seniority based promotion.
Respondent/FAA states that partial information post 2011 including inspection of the files has been provided to the appellant. Respondent explained that promotion could not be given to the appellant since he was the junior most and the person who has been promoted was found eligible as per Recruitment Rules. In so far as information about the reason why he was denied promotion, the same has been duly informed to the appellant.
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the promotion has taken place on the basis of Recruitment Rules, in which Seniority is the main criteria. Earlier for such promotions a Trade Test was also conducted as per the orders of the competent authority. In the recent two promotions, the Trade Test was dispensed with and the appellant is aggrieved by the change of the promotion policy. However, as clarified by the respondent, this was a purely discretionary measure on the part of the competent authority and not a part of Recruitment Rules. The Respondent further pointed out that a plausible reason behind such policy change for promotions is also that earlier Photostat machines were extremely bulky and difficult to handle, requiring a well trained operator which can now be easily dispensed with because of the technological advancement and user friendly machines. However, policy change with respect to promotions is not the point of adjudication before this Commission, therefore, the appeals are disposed of with the following directions:
CIC/NIHFW/C/2017/118524: With respect to the six missing pages being page nos. 2-8 in file no. A. 12025/6/95-GAS, the Commission directs an Enquiry to be conducted to examine the cause behind such untraceable papers. The Report of this Enquiry should be submitted before the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002118: The remaining two correspondence papers of year 2011 shall be provided to the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
Citation: Jabardeen v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in F. No.CIC/NIHFW/C/2017/118524 F. No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002118, Date of Decision: 20.07.2017