Copy of seniority list of TES Gr. B submitted to the Expert Committee appointed by the Supreme Court in connection with Rule 206 seniority case CA No.4389/2010 - BSNL: No such record of Seniority list is traceable in office - CIC: No intervention required
9 Oct, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. Copy of the seniority list of TES Gr. B submitted to the Expert Committee appointed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in connection with Rule 206 seniority case CA No.4389 of 2010.
2. Copies of all initial promotion orders and subsequent promotion orders in respect of the following executives issued before implementation and after implementation of honorable Supreme Court of Indi judgement dated 25-03-2008 in CA No. 4339 of 1995 and dated 21-01-2015 &14-12-2017 in CA No.4389 of 2010
Staff No. Name DoB
30797 A D BABLADI 22/07/1958
30908 V K MAHULI 15/04/1960
30989 RAJENDRA PRASAD 01/07/1958
30966 CHANDRAMA YADAV 01/07/1960
31007 BUDH PAL SINGH YADAV 10/07/1958
31068 BRIJESH TYAGI 01/08/1958
3. Copies of the extract of all seniority lists of the following executives revised as per Rule-206 in 1993¬94, subsequently revised in 2000-2001, revised as per the Supreme Court of India judgement dated 25¬03-2008 in CA No.4339 of 1995 and revised as per Supreme Court of India judgement dated 21-01-2015 &14-12-2017 in CA No.4389 of 2010
Staff No. Name DoB
30797 A D BABLADI 22/07/1958
30908 V K MAHULI 15/04/1960
30989 RAJENDRA PRASAD 01/07/1958
30966 CHANDRAMA YADAV 01/07/1960
31007 BUDH PAL SINGH YADAV 10/07/1958
31068 BRIJESH TYAGI 01/08/1958
4. The information sought is very much essential not only in the common interest of all the TES Gr.B executives involved in the honorable Supreme Court of India judgement dated 21-01-2015 &14-12¬2017 in CA No.4389 of 2010 and all other similarly situated executives as there is so much confusion in the seniority lists and promotion orders issued by BSNL CO ND.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 05.05.2022, as under:
Para 1. No such record of submission of Seniority list to the expert committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is traceable in this section. Hence, no such information is available.
Para 2 & 3: The information request is not available in the desired format. It needs compilation of records from different Mei which requires disproportionate diversion of considerable resources and manpower, which is not permissible under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act,2005
Para 4 No material information sought. Information sought is interrogatory in nature & in the form bf query, which does not qualify as information under section 2(1) of RTI Act, 2005. However, in compliance of Hon ble Supreme court judgement dated 21.01.2015 & 14.12.2017 in civil appeal no. 4389 of 2010, Seniority list in respect of SDEs(T) has already been finalized as per Rule 206 of P & T manual volume-IV and published vide this office letter No. 56- 04/2015-Pers(DPC)/ Pt.-III / 100 dated 04.06.2019.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 09.05.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2022 upheld the reply furnished by the PIO.
Written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 24.08.2023 and same is taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 28.08.2023 has been received from the CPIO. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
“… In this regard, it is submitted that BSNL counsel dealing with the case in Hon'ble Supreme Court had been provided all the relevant documents from time to time for preparation & filing of SLP along with the relevant documents 8s also submission of reply to other connected matters. When Expert committee had been formed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 21.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4389/2010, consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice K. Ramamoorthy retired Judge of the High of Court of Madras, as Chairman & Shri D.P. Sharma, Former Secretary in the Ministry of Law & Justice & Former Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi as Member. The BSNL counsel dealing with the case provided all the relevant documents to the Expert Committee as directed by the Apex court and also any additional documents/information sought by the Expert Committee. Which after hearing all the related parties submitted its report to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the reply i.r.o. point No.1 of RN application was given as "No such record of submission of Seniority list to the Expert Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is traceable in this section". Hence, no such information is available.
4. Further, vide point No. 2 of his RTI application, applicant had sought copies of promotion orders in respect of 06 executives issued before implementation & after implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Judgements dated 25.03.2008 in CA No. 4339/1995 & dated 21.01.2015 & 14.12.207 in CA No. 4389/2010.
In this regard, it is submitted that these (06) employees have joined DoT(Department of Telecommunications) and thereafter absorbed in BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000, directly as Junior Engineer or promoted from lower cadres employee(s) 35 to 40 years back. They have also got several promotions i.e. (officiating/Adhoc/Regular) during their entire service career and had reached up to AGM/DGM grade before retirement. During service these officers served in various Telecom circles of BSNL spread across the country. Moreover, the applicant has also not mentioned the posts/grade for which promotion orders are required. After retirement, their service books are transferred to the concerned CCA unit of DoT along with their pension papers and which remains in the custody of CCA units of DoT across the country.
Accordingly, the reply i.r.o. point No.2 was replied as "The information request is not available in the desired format. It needs compilation of records from different files which requires disproportionate diversion of considerable resources and manpower, which is not permissible under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act, 2005."
5. Vide point No. 3 of RTI application, applicant requested for providing information regarding extracts of all Seniority lists i.r.o. (06) officers as per Rule 206 in 1993-94, subsequently revised in 2000-01, revised as per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Judgement dated 25.03.2008 in CA No. 4339 of 1995 and revised as per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Judgement dated 21.01.2015 & 14.12.2017 in CA No. 4389 of 2010.
In this regard, it is submitted that seniority lists have been gone through multiple revisions as stated by the applicant himself in the RTI on the basis of outcome of various Court Judgements/decisions during the last more than 30 years and all these Seniority lists were duly circulated from time to time for information to all the concerned stakeholders. Taking out extracts of seniority positions of the officers specified in the RTI in all these Seniority lists issued during last 30 years is herculean and time consuming task which also requires collection & compilation of records from different files/sources requires disproportionate diversion of resources and manpower, which is not permissible under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act, 2005.
6. Further, vide point no. 4 of RTI application, applicant is giving justification regarding providing seniority lists and promotion orders issued i.r.o. aforesaid officers by stating that the information sought is very much essential not only in the common interest of all TES Gr 'B' executives involved in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgement dated 21.01.2015 8s 14A2.2017 in CA No. 4389 of 2010 and all other similarly situated executives as there is so much confusion in the Seniority lists & promotion orders issued by BSNL CO ND. It is evident from the above contents of point No. 4 of RTI application that no material information was sought and the same was replied accordingly.
7. The appellant had submitted his appeal against the aforementioned reply dated 05.05.2022 of CPIO before the First appellate authority vide his appeal No. BSNLD/A/E/22/00137 dated 09.05.2022. The appeal was examined by the First appellate authority along with the CPIO reply dated 05.05.2022 & vide its order No. BSNLCOPERS/13(21)/3/2020-DPC dated 07.06.2022. The First appellate authority held the reply of CPIO has appropriately replied to the original RTI dated 05.04.2022 vide letter dated 05.05.2022.
8. Background of the subject matter raised by the Applicant in the present Appeal.
With regard to RTI Appeal under consideration, it in informed that matter raised by the Applicant relates to the disputes in the Seniority lists and subsequent Promotions of the Officers of TES Gr.'B' i.e, SDE(T) of Department of Telecommunications, which had been appointed by DOT in the early 1980's and subsequently absorbed in BSNL/MTNL. Disputes in their Seniority /promotions has started from 1981 and after several rounds of litigations in various benches of Hon’ble CAT, High Courts and also multiple Judgments of Montle Supreme Court, matter has attained finality by the Apex Court Judgments in CA No. 4389/2010 & other connected matters vide its orders dated 21.01.2015 & 14.12.2017. In compliance to these two Judgments, Seniority lists in respect of TES Or.'131/SDEs(T) has already been finalized as per Rule 206 of P & T manual.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present
Respondent:
1. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, AGM, BSNL
2. Mr, Ramesh Kumar Jain, DM, RTI, BSNL
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the point wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He stated that the BSNL counsel dealing with the case provided all the relevant documents to the Expert Committee as directed by the Apex court. He averred that no such record of Seniority list submitted to the Expert Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is traceable in their office. He apprised the Commission that the revised Seniority List is already available in public domain on their official website.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Information Commissioner
Citation: Akula Satyanarayana v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, CIC/BSNLD/A/2022/647708; Date of Decision: 14.09.2023