Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smnislam

Why cant ACR and DPC proceedings made public property

Recommended Posts

smnislam

Why cant ACR and DPC proceedings made public property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • uniquee
      By uniquee
      I want to file a RTI to know information about following promotion issues from one of the PSU, please help me in framing the application:
      1) Ranking list of eligible promotees for the cadre of officers in the CY Promotion round
      2) The criteria applied for preparing Ranking list for promotion to the cadre of officer
      3) The seniority list of employees eligible for  promotion to the cadre of officer
      4) Number of employees in the seniority list not considered for promotion due to vigilance issues
      5) Number of employees in the seniority list not considered for promotion due to adverse confidential reports
      6) Weightage applied for preparing ranking list for promotion to the cadre of officer on these counts Seniority, Merit, Confidential Reports
      7) Total Marks received by the candidate at Rank 1 in the list & Total Marks received by the last candidate selected from the ranking list as officer
       
       
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
       
      BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067


       

      F.No.PBA/06/163
      September 25, 2006
       
       
      Appeal No. 115 /ICPB/2006



      In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.


       
       

      Appellant: Shri. H.K. Bansal
      Public authority: Ministry of Communication & IT, Shri H.C. Jayal, Joint Secretary & CPIO, Shri. Yaswant S. Bhave, Spl. Secretary & Appellate Authority.
       
      FACTS:
       
      The appellant in this matter has sought information from the CPIO relating to the regularization in the post of Supdt. Engineer (Civil) and adhoc promotion to the grade of CE©. Having not satisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred his first appeal dated 26.5.06 to the appellate authority which supplied all the information vide its letter dated 10.8.2006. Having still not satisfied with the information supplied, the appellant has filed his second appeal before the Commission on 11.7.06. Comments were called for wherein it is stated that in the information furnished by the CPIO and the appellate authority, all information sought for by the appellant has been furnished except the minutes of the meeting held in UPSC. In the rejoinder, the appellant has contended that the minutes of the meeting in UPSC cannot be withheld.
       
      DECISION:
       
      I have perused the application and also the information furnished by CPIO and the appellant authority. On receipt of CPIO’s reply, in his appeal, the appellant had elaborately dealt with the deficiency in the reply furnished by CPIO. The appellate authority has dealt with each and every point raised by the appellant and wherever there was a deficiency, correct information has been furnished to the appellant. The
      only information which was not furnished relates to the DPC minutes and connected files. . As far as the DPC minutes are concerned, in Shri Gopal Kumar V Army HQ ( Appeal No CIC/AT/A/2006/0009 dated 13/7/2006, a Division Bench of this Commission has held “Departmental Promotion committees prepare their minutes after examining ACRs of employees due for promotion. Disclosure of the complete proceedings of the DPC and the grades given by various officers to their subordinates may lead to the disclosure of ACRs. Since ACRs themselves according to us are barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference, DPC proceedings should be similarly barred”. The same decision applies in the present case also and therefore, both the CPIO and the AA have rightly declined to disclose the documents connected with the DPC.
       
      Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
       
       

      Sd/-
      (Padma Balasubramanian)
      Information Commissioner


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy