Status of seniority sought by appellant claiming that he had secured 83 marks in the training & his seniority is not reflecting these marks - CIC: provide the relative seniority of all candidates who secured 83 marks giving the basis of seniority fixation
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 1.12.2011 seeking information about the seniority list of 2007 and 2010 in respect of assistant loco pilots. In all, information has been sought on 4 (25) points. The responded pointwise on 8.2.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed his first appeal on 18.4.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). No reply of the FAA is available on the file. The appellant approached the Commission on 5.10.2012 in second appeal.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 1.12.2011 and stated that he was seeking information on only one point, i.e., he wanted to know the status of his seniority. The appellant explained that he is at present working as Loco Pilot (Goods) and that this matter of his seniority has been pending since 2001 when he was working as assistant loco pilot. The appellant said that he is expecting the respondent to give him copy of the seniority list so that he knows where he stands in the relative seniority.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant knows what his seniority is and as far as the seniority list is concerned, that has also been given on 17.7.2012.
6. The appellant stated that the information given to him is not connected with him and that the seniority list which has been given was a list that was not relevant in so far as his seniority is concerned.
7. The respondent explained that the fact is that the appellant is having a problem with the seniority and that his problem is in the nature of grievance redressal and not a matter to be taken up.
8. The appellant stated that his issue has to be understood in the perspective that he had secured 83 marks in the training and that his seniority is not reflecting the 83 marks. The appellant explained that this seniority was fixed on adhoc basis without consideration of the marks he secured in the training. The appellant stated that after the marks had been obtained, the seniority should have reflected those marks.
9. What emerged from the hearing is that there were a number of candidates with 83 marks and the appellant wants to know the following information from the respondent: i) The relative seniority of all those candidates who secured 83 marks; and ii) The basis of fixing the relative seniority of all the candidates who secured equal marks.
10. The respondent is directed to provide information to the appellant on the two points mentioned in para 9 above within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Sanjeev Kumar v. Northern Railway in Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2012/003349/VS/06034