क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल – 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/145972/02526
File no.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/145972
In the matter of:
Ashok Kumar
... Appellant
VS
ACPIO & Assistant Section Officer
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Higher Education
Technical Section -1, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/02/2018
CPIO replied on : 01/05/2018
First appeal filed on : 05/06/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 06/07/2018
Second Appeal dated : 17/07/2018
Date of Hearing : 03/01/2020
Date of Decision : 03/01/2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri P J Soundararajan, Under Secretary & CPIO alongwith Arun
Kumar Karn, Assistant Section Officer & ACPIO
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. List of total families in the Scheduled Caste (SCs) which have not benefitted
with the policy of reservation in the Central/ State Government jobs and Public
Sector jobs.
2. List of total families in the Scheduled Tribe (STs) which have not benefitted
with the policy of reservation in the Central/ State Government jobs.
1
3. List of total families in Other Backward Classes (OBCs) which are not
benefitted with the policy of reservation in the Central/ State Government jobs
and Public Sector jobs.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the desired information was not provided to him
by the CPIO. He further submitted that he had sought this information in public
interest to know how many citizens have been denied the benefit of the
reservation to which they were entitled.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply given to the appellant dated
01.05.2018. He further relied on the DoPT O.M dated 24th September, 2010
and submitted that the information sought in the RTI Application is not
available with the respondent as the matter comes under the purview of the
23 individual llTs which are separate Public Authorities having their own
CPIO/PIO and Appellate Authorities under the RTI Act, 2005. Following the
directions contained in the OM dated 24th September, 2010 of DoPT, since the
information is available with more than one Public Authority, therefore the
appellant was advised to make separate applications to the concerned Public
Authorities for obtaining information from them. He also submitted that the
record regarding the families who were not given the reservation and other
benefits is not available in their records and had it been the families who had
received the said benefit, such information could have been provided.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the information
sought by the appellant relates to all the IITs and Sec 6(3) transfer by the CPIO,
MHRD to all the IITs was not practicably possible. Moreover, it is pertinent to
mention here that the sought for information is voluminous and direction for
disclosure would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authorities. It is relevant to mention below the Apex Court observations
relating to impractical demands of the appellants in the case of CBSE vs Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011[Arising
out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009
2
File no.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/145972
“37. ..........Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for
disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency
of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the
non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not
be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national
development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony
among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or
intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want
a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time
in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging
their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure
of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public
authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and
regular duties.”
During the hearing, the appellant was asked to assist in reducing the demand
for information by specifying any particular region or IIT regarding which he
wants the information, so as to seek limited relief which can be provided but
the appellant stated that he wants the information as has been sought by him
in his original RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the above, the appellant is advised to limit the information sought
and to submit his revised request for limited information to the CPIO within 10
days from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the CPIO is directed to
provide an additional reply to the appellant within 20 days from the date of
the receipt of the revised request from the appellant. The appellant is also at
liberty to file fresh RTI applications to the concerned IITs with specific queries.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आय!
ु त)
3
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
