Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
FACTS:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding details of total vacancies created in the cadre of Group 'A' (Assistant Commissioner), details of total vacancies filled in regular promotion and after giving reservation benefit in the promotion in cadre of Group 'A' (Assistant Commissioner) as per Cadre Restructuring of Central Excise and Customs notification/scheme in 2014-2015 in Western Zone for General and Reserved Category i.e., SC and ST, etc.
2. The CPIO and Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC, vide its letter dated 04.10.2016 provided a point wise response stating on point (i) that details of vacancy created and allotted were available on the website of CBEC. As regards point (ii) to (iv), it was stated that the promotion was made as per Recruitment Rules of All India Basis and not Zone Wise. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 25.11.2016, concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
3. The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajesh D. Bindra through VC;
Respondent: Mr. S.A. Ansari, Under Secretary;
4. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that despite repeated attempts, satisfactory information had not been received. It was argued that the Respondent had consistently evaded reply to specific queries and skirted the issues involved therein. It was submitted that as an Association, they desired specific information related to number of vacancies created in the cadre of Group-A (Assistant Commissioners) as a part of cadre restructuring exercise in 2014-2015, details of vacancies filled on regular promotion, grant of benefit of reservation in this cadre, file notings etc. in respect of the Western Zone for General and Reserved Category i.e. SC/ST only. The Respondent in his reply explained that point-wise response had been given to the Appellant by the CPIO and the FAA. It was explained that they do not maintain zone wise data and hence precise details were offered to the Appellant. During the hearing, it was elaborated that in CBEC, they maintain data on All India Basis and Zone-Wise details were neither maintained nor compiled by them. Therefore, the information as sought was provided accordingly. As regards the DPCs conducted consequent upon the cadre restructuring exercise, the details were available with them and the minutes and other records of the DPCs thus conducted had already been shared with other Associations. It was stated that the Respondent Authority were willing to share these details with the Appellant as well. The Respondent clarified that the details of vacancy created and allotted were available on its website and that the Appellant had been informed about the same. As regards filling up the vacancies for reservation benefit for promotion, the entire issue had been dealt with on All India Basis and no benefit of reservation was provided in view of Hon'ble CAT Chandigarh's direction in Rajesh Rai case.
5. The Appellant however, contested the claims of the Respondent and complained that the Respondent Public Authority had intentionally and deliberately concealed the information from him. Even the FAA had not afforded an opportunity for personal hearing in accordance with Section 19(4) of the RTI Act, 2005. Consistently, the Respondent denied any malafide in the matter.
6. The Commission observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
7. It was howev........