1. Ms. Anjali Chauhan filed an application dated 23.04.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), D.I.G.(Adm) Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) seeking information on four points pertaining to posts of Medical Officer, Senior Medical Officer and Chief Medical Officer in CRPF including (i) reasons for not following the guidelines/instructions of DoPT dated 23rd October, 1989 in case of promotion of Medical Officers/Senior Medical Officers in CRPF, if so, provide copy of the same, and (ii) intimate if there is any valid reason on record to prevent promotion of seniors who complete the required years of service after the cutoff date but much before the date of DPC, whereas the junior officers complete the required number of years before the cutoff date, if so provide a copy of the same.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 19.08.2014 before the Commission on the ground that no information has been provided by the CPIO and that the FAA too did not respond to his appeal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide the information as sought by him as it relates to corruption and disclosure of information would serve larger public interest. Hearing:
3. The appellant Smt. Anjali Chauhan was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri B.P. Singh, DIGP, CRPF was present in person during the hearing.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant has been informed by the CPIO and the FAA vide letters dated 19.05.2014 and 30.06.2014 respectively that the information sought cannot be provided as the CRPF has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24(1) of the same Act. Further, from the facts of the case mentioned in the RTI application, there appears to be no violation of human rights or allegation of corruption. The respondent further submitted that the appellant vide the above mentioned letters has been informed that the recruitment rules of the Medical Officers are already on the official website of the CRPF and the same can retrieved from the website. Decision:
5. The Commission agrees with the submission of the respondent and observes that in this case information has been sought from an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer
Comments