CIC: Information pertaining to sanctioned, filled and vacant posts in MCD falls u/s 4(1) (b)(i) and (ii) of RTI Act; Is mandatorily required to be disclosed on a suo motu basis; Insistence on charging photocopying fees is not justified; Comply with Sec 4

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Please provide the number of personnel sanctioned, vacant and available posts in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Please provide department wise, Rank wise and post wise information separately as on 31st March 2023. Please do not transfer RTI to the department.”

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.12.2023, held as under:

“The appellant Ms. Pooja Verma, had filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 before PIO, Administrative Officer. Accordingly, reply was provided to her by PIO, CED. An appeal was preferred by the appellant before FAA with dissatisfaction of the reply of the PIO, CED.

The hearing was held before the Appellate Authority (FAA) in the wake of hearing letter No-PIO(Estt.]/CED/MCD/DA-RTI-ID-330/2023/5151 dated 05.12.2023 in presence PIO, CED and representative of the appellant. During the hearing, PIO, CED stated that this department has provided the information to the appellant vide letter NoPIO/AO(Estt.)/CED/MCD/DA-RTI-ID-330/2023/1843 dated 28.06.2023 as per the provisions contained in RTI Act, 2005.

On going through the documents available in this department, the undersigned is in a view that the information provided by PIO, CED, was within stipulated time and as per the provisions contained in RTI Act, 2005. However, as desired by the representative of the appellant, PIO, CED, is directed to provide a copy of Scheduled of Post 2023-24 to the appellant and transfer a copy of RTI application of the appellant to all Cadre Controlling Authorities of MCD for further information within 15 days from the issue of this Appellate Order. Accordingly, the appeal stand disposed of.”

3. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.12.2023 stating as under:

“In compliance of this department's letter No. Dir FAA/CED/MCD/RTI-ID330/2023/5675 dated 26.12.2023, this to inform you that copy of Scheduled for the year 2023-24 may be provided to you by depositing a Sum of Rupees Three Hundred & Seventy Six Only in Municipal Treasury by your end (Schedule contain a total of 188 pages @ Rs 02 per page as per the provisions contained in RTI Act). Further, a copy of your RTI along with Appellate Order is also being forwarded herewith to all the Cadre Controlling Authorities of MCD so that requisite information would be provided to you from their end.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: Shri Sunil Barthwal, Junior Secretariate Assistant (JSA), appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 02.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the FAA’s order, the PIO/CED has demanded additional fee of Rs. 376/- for providing a copy of Scheduled for the year 2023-24 (Schedule contain a total of 188 pages @ Rs 2 per page as per the provisions contained in RTI Act). Copy of the RTI along with the FAA’ order was also forwarded to all the Cadre Controlling Authorities of MCD. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant has not deposited the additional fee till the date of hearing.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the information sought pertains to sanctioned, filled and vacant posts in MCD, which directly relates to its organizational structure and public appointments. Such information falls within Section 4(1) (b)(i) and (ii) of the RTI Act and is mandatorily required to be disclosed on a suo motu basis by the Public Authority. The insistence on charging photocopying fees in this case is not justified, as the denial of free access runs contrary to the spirit of proactive disclosure. Seeking fee for information which is supposed to be declared upfront under section 4 (1)(b) and that too despite Hon’ble Apex Court order as cited below amounts to institutional malpractice. The Commission is of the view that information concerning sanctioned and vacant posts is a matter of great public importance and must be disclosed proactively without insisting on individual applications. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the complete information sought by the Appellant, including a copy of the Schedule of Posts 2023-24, free of cost within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent Public Authority shall upload the information regarding sanctioned, filled and vacant posts on its official website in compliance with Section 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; of the RTI Act and ensure regular updates at prescribed intervals, failing which penalty may be imposed as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

8. Notwithstanding above, the Commission also notes that the Respondent Public Authority is not complying with the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act in letter and spirit. The Commission would like to counsel the Respondent that every Public Authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:

“25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of ‘Monitoring and Reporting’ conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., ‘to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority”.

26. “For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act.”

9. In view of the above, the Respondent is advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This will also relieve the Public Authority from the burden of RTI Applications. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO/FAA is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action. 10. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pooja Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/112338; Date of Decision : 11.09.2025