First appeal on criteria for promotion under consideration

[vaghelabd]

Members may find the first appeal that I made find useful. It is reproduced below.
------------------------------------------------

Jul 14 2007

FAA and ED (HR),
IOC HO Mumbai

Dear Sir,

Kindly refer to the RTI Application no. vaghelabdhoq6 dated 24th June 2007 and the reply dated 9th July 2007 by Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning) IOC HO Mumbai.(Copies enclosed for ready reference).

The norms for promotion informed by Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning) IOC HO Mumbai and "said to be the norms for promotion" is only a vague and subjective statement. It does not have any quantifiable parameter, with marking system attached to each parameter, which is an essential practical requisite to implement the policy. Therefore, such an abstract statement cannot be a codified policy and cannot be accepted as the "norms" for considering me for promotion from Officer Grade D to Grade E (Manager to Senior Manager) in 1997.

Further, every information requested / furnished under the Right to Information Act 2005 need not necessarily be fulfilling the criteria of public interest. e. g. the question of public interest doesn't arise for the information that is requested / furnished under Section 4 (d) and under Section 8 (3) of the Act. These information pertain to "reasons of Quasi-judicial / administrative decisions for the affected person" and "information pertaining to the events that took place more than twenty years ago" respectively. This shows that the stand taken by the PIO regarding "information requested not in public interest" is irrelevant and out of context and the PIO has refused the information on invalid and unjustifiable ground.

Moreover, it is quite possible that there are no norms for promotion at all. Promotions have been / are being decided arbitrarily and with a view not to accept the fact of non-existence of the norms / hide the true picture, the PIO has prepared a description citing it as the "norms".

Considering the above possibilities, before taking a decision on this appeal, Shri A K Rauniar, FAA may kindly verify the official records on the "PIO informed norms for promotion" with regard to:

1. Name and designation of the authority that approved the "PIO informed norms for promotion" .

2. Policy letter no. / date vide which the "PIO informed norms for promotion" were circulated.

3. The date since the "PIO informed norms for promotion" has been in effect.

4. Period during which the "PIO informed norms for promotion" have been in effect.

5. Whether the "PIO informed norms for promotion" are presently also in vogue.

Shri A K Rauniar FAA is also requested to take into consideration the fact that Shri A K Rauniar, ED (HR) IOC HO Mumbai preferred not to respond to the request of the undersigned dated 13th June 2007 and did not provide the requested norms which necessitated this RTI application. The reasons for ignoring the reasonable request for informing the norms for promotion & not acknowledging / not responding to it be taken into consideration.

As regards the judgments w. r. to the disclosure of information on DPC minutes, Marks in DPC and the wrong applicability of Section 8(1)(j) by the PIOs in the cases of an RTI applicant seeking the information pertaining to himself, I quote the following highly relevant recent decisions of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.

Decision I : The first and the foremost is the twenty six page landmark CIC full bench decision No. Decision_23042007_03.pdf dated 23rd April 2007 in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh v/s Lok Sabha Secretariat .

Other six CIC decisions reiterating the crucial ruling given by the said full bench decision are as under:

Decision No. II : Decision_09052007_01.pdf - Shri Om Prakash v/s STC
Decision No. III : Decision_10052007_02.pdf - Shri S K Sharma v/s Department of Posts
Decision No. IV : Decision_14052007_09.pdf - Shri R K Agarwal v/s SBI
Decision No. V : Decision_14062007_18.pdf - Shri M Ramachandran v/s JIPME&R
Decision No. VI : Decision_18052007_11.pdf - Shri Rahul Aggarwal v/s Syndicate Bank
Decision No. VII : Decision_28052007_06.pdf - Dr. Paful Kumar Shaoo v/s LIC

The relevant and crucial abstracts from these decisions given by the Information Commissioners of CIC are quoted hereby as under :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision I : Decision_23042007_03.pdf dated 23rd April 2007 in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh v/s Lok Sabha Secretariat:

32. In so far as application of Section 8(1)(j) to deny disclosure on the ground that personal information which has no public interest is concerned, it is necessary to explain the scope and ambit of this sub section. Section 8(1)(j) reads as under:

"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information".

This Section has to be read as a whole. If that were done, it would be apparent that that "personal information" does not mean information relating to the information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is stated "unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual". If one were to seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information about a third party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information seeker can be denied the information on the ground that disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information. Thus, denial for inspection/verification of his own answer sheets by a citizen applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Decision No. II: Decision_09052007_01.pdf - Shri Om Prakash v/s STC

This will be in consonance with the full Bench decision of this Commission wherein it has been decided that DPC minutes and connected proceedings are not exempt from disclosure. (Appeal No CIC/WB/C 2006/233- dated 23.4.2007 (Paragraph 42) - Shri Rakeh Kumar Singh V Lok Sabha Secretariat-). Accordingly, I direct the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant within 15 days from the date of this decision, in respect of DPC held from the year 1997 to 2005 with specific reference to the year 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision No. III: Decision_10052007_02.pdf - Shri S K Sharma v/s Department of Posts

Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information". (Decision dated 23.4.2007 in Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat—Paragraph No 32) In the present case, the appellant is seeking information about his own case and therefore, the same cannot be denied under Section 8(1) (j).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision No. IV: Decision_14052007_09.pdf - Shri R K Agarwal v/s SBI

Application dated 30.10.2006 seeking for a copy of the recommendation of DGM. Both CPIO and AA have declined to furnish the information relying on Section 8(1)(j). Recently, the full Bench of this Commission has decided that when a citizen seeks information about his own case, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied. (Para 32 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh,Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ; dated 23 4 2007) Therefore, the CPIO will furnish the information sought by the appellant within 15 days.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision No. V: Decision_14062007_18.pdf - Shri M Ramachandran v/s JIPME&R

As per this decision the Full Commission has felt the disclosure of proceedings may bring fairness and make the system more transparent and accountable. The Commission more over finds that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee or its minutes are not covered by the exemptions provided for u/s 8 (1) and therefore such proceedings and minutes are to be disclosed. On account of the above decision I hereby direct the CPIO to disclose the DPC Minutes of the meeting (Group-C) dated 26.6.1997 within 15 days from the receipt of this direction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision No. VI: Decision_18052007_11.pdf - Shri Rahul Aggarwal v/s Syndicate Bank

Going through the CPIO's order, AA's decision, it is clear that disciplinary proceedings against the officer has been completed and he was also awarded with punishment of removal from service. The appellant is also requesting information about his own case, hence citing section 8.1(j) is not relevant. The Commission has given a number of decisions in this regard and recently in the case of Appeal No CIC/WB/C 2006/233- dated 23.4.2007 - Shri Rakesh Kumar SinghV Lok Sabha Secretariat, the full Bench of the Commission has also decided this matter by indicating section 8.1(j) is applicable only in respect of third party information since it is going to interfere with the privacy of the individual. There is no way section 8.1(j) can be applied in this case when the appellant is seeking information about his own case.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision No. VII: Decision_28052007_06.pdf - Dr. Paful Kumar Shaoo v/s LIC

However, a Full Bench of this Commission has recently decided that DPC minutes are not exempt from disclosure. (Para 32 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh,Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ; dated 23 4 2007). In view of the decision of the full Commission that DPC minutes, even though would reflect the substance of the confidential reports, is not exempt from disclosure, I am of the view that similarly the marks awarded for work record, even if it is based on confidential reports, is not exempt from disclosure and has to be disclosed.

In so far as disclosure of marks obtained by other candidates is concerned, this Commission has repeatedly taken the view that marks obtained by successful candidates have to be disclosed. Accordingly, the marks obtained by the successful candidates, without disclosing the break up, should be provided to the appellant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These CIC decisions also conclusively confirm that the PIO has erred in taking shelter of Section 8(1)(j) for refusing to disclose the requested information.

In the light of the foregoing, FAA is requested to direct the PIO to disclose the requested information expeditiously.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this first appeal.

With kind regards,


(Vaghela B D),
RTI Appellant, Ahmedabad
202 SARAP OPP NAVJIVAN PRESS OFF ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD 380014

CC: Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning) IOC HO Mumbai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Babubhai Vaghela [*****Email link deleted*******]
Date: Jun 24, 2007 12:12 PM
Subject: vaghelabdhoq6 : Further to letter no.WR:HRD:1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR) IOC WR
To: S K Sarangi ****email link deleted*******
Shri S K Sarangi,
PIO and GM (Planning),
IOC HO Mumbai

Dear Sir,

Further to the letter WR : HRD : 1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR) IOC WR and (copy enclosed) my message dated 13th June 2007 to Shri A K Rauniar, ED (HR) IOC HO Mumbai (forwarded herewith), under the Right to Information Act 2005,

1. Kindly let me know the norms against which I was considered for promotion from Grade D to Grade E in 1997.

2. Kindly let me know the marks that I was given against each of the parameter of the norms and the aggregate marks awarded to me.

3. Also kindly let me know the aggregate cut-off marks considered for promotion from Grade D to Grade E in 1997.

Application fee follows.

Kindly expedite the requested information.

With kind regards,


(Vaghela B D),
202 Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press,
Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014

Resi - 079 2754 0128 / M - 94276 08632


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [******email link deleted********]
Date: Jun 13, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: Further to letter no.WR:HRD:1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR) IOC WR
To: [email link deleted]

Shri A K Rauniar,
ED (HR),
IOC HO Mumbai

(Through Proper Channel)


Further to letter no. WR:HRD:1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR)IOC WR Mumbai (copy enclosed),kindly let me have the norms against which I was considered for promotion from Grade D to Grade E in 1997.



(Vaghela B D),
Sr. Manager (PPES),
IOC GSO Ahmedabad
Emp No. 11709

[neeraj Chauhan]

Dear Sir,
This is a forum for general discussions and sharing of thoughts . Every one over here is just aware of bare RTI act So i request you to post your matter in a concise , compact and subjective way otherwise reader just loses concentration.
NICK CHAUHAN

[vaghelabd]

Dear Sir,

I shared my experience which may be useful to some member in making an appeal.

With warm regards,

Vaghela B D

Originally Posted by neeraj Chauhan

Dear Sir,
This is a forum for general discussions and sharing of thoughts . Every one over here is just aware of bare RTI act So i request you to post your matter in a concise , compact and subjective way otherwise reader just loses concentration.
NICK CHAUHAN

[kushal]

@Vaghela
Kindly do not post live email link over RTI India Forum, as they may be be abused by spammers.

Also I failed to understand on the first look, as to what the matter is about. The best course would be to brief the case and make a point out of it, and for the original appeal and reference material, that can be attached as rightly done by you. That way we can be more constructive as pointed out by Nick.

Thank You!