Information about Selection Board for promotion to the rank of Colonel was sought - CIC: There is no synergy in the replies of PIO on the first & second occasion - CIC: PIO is not required to collect & compile the information on the demand of an applicant
20 Aug, 2016Information sought:
Appellant states that prior to 01 Jan 2009, three selection boards were constituted by the erstwhile promotion system governed by MS Branch Policy Letter No.31525/P/MS5B dated 06 May 1987. Based on this system, three Selection Board (SB) for promotion to the rank of Colonel was also conducted in year 2007 and 2008. Appellant sought the following information:
a) The total no. of Number 3 Selection Board held in respect of Infantry Officers in years 2007 and 2008.
b) The total No. of Infantry Officers (fresh cases only) considered in each of the a/m No.3 Selection Board (numerical data only).
c) Amongst the a/m total Infantry officers (at para 3 (b) above), how many officers were PSC or TSC qualified. Numerical data in r/o each be provided separately.
d) Amongst the a/m total Infantry officers (at para 3(c) above) how many PSC/TSC officers were approved for promotion in each of the No.3 Selection Board held in each of the years.
e) Information asked in (b) to (d) in tabular form.
Grounds for Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: Appellant: Present on phone.
Respondent : Brig. Sumar Vir Singh, CPIO, Maj R.N.
Sharma,GSO1 and Maj Vabhav Kumar of Army HQ, Delhi present in person. Appellant mentioned that he wants number of PSC/TSC qualified Infantry Officers who were considered for promotion from Lt.
Col to Col. in 2007-08 by Number 3 Selection Board as he has already received the total number of Infantry Officers considered. He also stated that information is readily available with the CPIO and in the past have provided similar information for 2010. The below facts has been recorded after submission sent by appellant through email.
Appellant submitted that on the first occasion, PIO denied information stating that the data does not exist in the form as asked and public authority is not expected to create info as per CIC ruling CIC/WB/A2007/01092 dt 04 Nov 2007 even though format specified was optional. In the second instance, when no format was specified, the PIO again denied information citing 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. of RTI Act, 2005 which states that ‘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.’ Hence, it can be seen that there is no synergy in the replies of PIO on the first and the second occasion. It also needs to be explained by PIO as to how the seeking of information by the undersigned is detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question which is merely 89 years old as it is of year 2007 and 2008 vintage. Secondly, how would it involve disproportionate diversion of resources when the data is computerized and this particular information was being provided suo motu along with the result of No 3 Selection Board (SB) in the year 2009 and 2010? CPIO mentioned that he does not have the breakup of PSC/TSC qualified Infantry Officers who were considered for promotion by Number 3 Selection Board in 200708. For collating the desired information personal records of all the considered officers have to be collected from different places. It will entail disproportionate diversion of resources.
Decision :
After hearing both parties, Commission is of the view that the appellant wants the CPIO to collect additional information, which is not available in his office, and furnish to the appellant. CPIO is expected to provide the information available with him and is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of an information seeker nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. According to Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act:
“information” means any material in any form including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be assessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Hence according to RTI Act, information does not mean compilation of information collected from different places. In view of this, Commission upholds the decision of CPIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Lt Col S Marwaha v. MoD (Army) in File No.CIC/CC/A/2014/000780/DP