O R D E R

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 14.03.2020 seeking information on the following three points:

“I want the following informations regarding Appointment order issued to Internal Selected Trainee Aircraft Maintenance Engineer through staff notice with Reference No. COP/AIEL/2017/321 dated 24.1.2017.

1) Why these Trainee AMEs are not Appointed as Aircraft Engineer in E-3 grade after successful completion of Aircraft Type Rated Training and Acquired AME License (B1/B2 ) from DGCA as per your appointment order terms and conditions.

2) Is Justice Dharmadikari Committee (JDC ) Report effective for Internal Recruitment through staff notice.

3) If so you are Issued Appointment order well are Implementation of JDC report in 2017 with terms and conditions mentioned in above Query point 1.

Then How JDC effective to these Trainee AMEs.”

The CPIO, Air India Engineering Services Limited vide letter dated 07.07.2020, provided point-wise information to the Appellant as under:

“1 & 2 In our opinion, the information sought for in Query Nos. 1 & 2 does not fall within section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3 The information sought is not clear. In the event any specific information is required, you may please specify the same.”

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2020, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent.

The Respondent reiterated the contents of the reply dated 07.07.2020.

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant is largely clarificatory in nature and that the same is beyond the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that under the provisions of the RTI Act 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 CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

Be that as it may, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the Respondent. The Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव)

Information Commissioner (सूचना

आयु(cid:389))

िदनांक / Date: 13.01.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ(cid:366)मािणत स(cid:529)ािपत (cid:366)ित)

B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना)

Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)

011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Air India Engineering Services Limited CRA Building, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110003

2. The Central Public Information Officer Air India Engineering Services Limited CRA Building, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110003

3. Mr. Mohan Banoth