O R D E R

(21.06.2021)

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC’s order dated 29.01.2020 in this matter.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated

09.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Central Office, Nariman Point Mumbai, seeking information regarding list of the candidates who had been promoted to Scale V after availing exemption with regard to 3 years Branch head service, (which was declared vide Staff circular no: 6511 dated 23.12.2016), and their present place of posting. The CPIO replied on 16.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 06.04.2018 before this Commission which was heard and decided by this Commission on 29.01.2020 and inter alia the following directions were passed:

“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the reply given by the respondent is evasive and incomplete. The case relied upon by the respondent i.e. Canara Bank vs C S Shyam is distinguishable as in the present appeal of the appellant has been seeking list of candidates who have been promoted to Scale V after availing exemption with regard to 3 years Branch head service, (which was declared vide Staff circular no: 6511 dated 23.12.2016) and the same was required for upholding transparency and accountability in the system. Moreover, in other cases the public authority had been revealing the list of successful candidates who were called for interview based on written test. However, in the appellant case the list was being denied under the guise of personal information. The Commission notes that the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Union Public Service Commission v. N. Sugathan, W.P. (C) No.8845/2014 has observed that “…….an applicant for a public post participates in a competitive process where his eligibility/suitability for the public post is weighed/compared vis-a-vis other applicants…….an overlooked/unsuccessful applicant is entitled to details/particulars of the successful applicants. An exception was however carved out with respect to the information sought with respect to other overlooked/unsuccessful candidates……….” Further, it may not be out of place to mention that the very objective of the Right to Information Act is to bring transparency and accountability in the system and the public authorities who are given the power and functions have to exercise the same in accordance with the norms set therefor. Moreover, it is an acceptable norm that the procedure has to be just, reasonable and fair. It is not the case before the Commission that she has been seeking redressal of her grievance i.e. non-promotion but the information for her non-promotion. In view of the above judgment and facts of this case, the Commission feels that interest of justice would be served if the respondent is directed to provide the information, Accordingly, respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of issue of this order. With the above observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.”

3. The appellant vide letter dated 16.11.2020 filed complaint for non-compliance of the order of the Commission dated 29.01.2020.

4. In compliance of the order of the Commission, the CPIO vide letter dated 29.02.2020 provided the eligibility criteria for participation in promotion process, however, did not furnish the list of candidates sought by the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri G B S