Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4411
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Kumar Saurabh – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. – Respondent
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 | CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747
Employees are entitled to seek promotion-related information under the RTI Act, and withholding such information is unjustifiable, especially when it obstructs their right to challenge administrative decisions.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(e) - Promotion eligibility - Denial of information regarding promotion processes and results to an employee citing fiduciary capacity; CPIO's inaction and incomplete response were challenged as a breach of transparency under the RTI - The employee contended withholding of information impacted his right to seek justice. The refusal to disclose information was considered unjustified by the Commission with a directive for compliance and potential penalties for administrative failure. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an employee, filed an RTI application seeking information about his promotion process which was kept in a sealed cover without any disciplinary proceedings against him. Initial responses from the CPIO were deemed incomplete and vague.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the CPIO's denial of critical information unjustified and indicative of mala fide intent toward the appellant. The necessity for transparency in promotion-related decisions was emphasized, especially where such withholding seems contrary to established legal precedents.
Issues: The core issue pertained to the withholding of promotion-related information from the employee, despite the fact that he was directly involved in the promotion process, raising questions of transparency and accountability under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission reinforced the principle that employees have a legitimate expectation of access to information relevant to their employment and promotion, especially when failure to provide such could hinder their legal recourse. Therefore, the denial of information under fiduciary grounds was overruled in this context.
Result: The Commission ordered complete disclosure of information to the appellant and initiated inquiry for penalties against the involved CPIOs for non-compliance with the RTI Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts of the case. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. legal arguments on rti response inadequacy. (Para 3 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations on the cpio's compliance and response. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. rulings and principles related to promotion transparency. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final decisions and compliance directions issued. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
“Please provide the complete information (note-sheets, correspondences etc.) regarding:
i. the status and disposal of my Representation titled as '(i) Request for consideration of Promotion Eligibility to E-7A Grade w.e.f 01.10.2020. Dated:23.07.2021' which was movement in E-Office File in around July- Oct'21;
ii. is there any notification for introduction of E-7A Grade apart from EESL Promotion Policy, 2017? If yes, please provide the copy;
iii. initiation, concurrence(s), approval of sealed envelope proceedings regarding Promotion Interview commenced on 01.12.2021 of undersigned in absence of any Vigilance Proceedings/issuance of Charge-
Sheet on that date and the copy of rule, policy under which it was done;
iv. initiation, approval of sealed envelope proceedings regarding Promotion Interview commenced on 05.01.2023 of undersigned; v. Documents supplied to the members of DPC commenced on 01.12.2021 & 05.01.2023 for taking the decision;
vi. Note-sheet of approval etc. and Rule Position under which there was non-opening of sealed envelope beyond the period of 2 Years from the Date of first DPC beginning from 01.12.2021 till 30.11.2023;
vii. reports, PMS (Fy 20 to 24), DPC Meeting Minutes etc. and Assessment Marks of undersigned in interview commenced on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023 (out of Max. Marks) for promotion cycles of Oct'21, Apr'22 and Oct'22 in terms of parameters EESL Promotion Policy:
Max. Marks /Obt. Marks a. Performance Appraisal Ratings (for last 3 years) 30 ? b. Marks for Service rendered in the Grade 20 ? c. **DPC Marks 10 ? Total 60 ?
**DPC Marks Parameters:
Sl. No. Parameters Maximum Max. Marks/Obt. Marks 1 Teambuilding/Leadership qualities 3 ? 2 General Conduct/Disciplinary issues in last 02 years if any3 ? 3 Award, recommendation and other mode of recognition 2 ? 4 Suitability/Seniority cum fitness 2 ? Total Marks 10 ?
viii. Is there any respective individual Assessment sheet of individual Committee members of DPC regarding the promotion interview on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023 of undersigned? Please provide the individual assessments of Committee Members (if any) without their name;
ix. If the answer to above viii is yes, then please provide methodology to calculate the final score of the interview;
x. Please provide the coloured copy of the physical /hard sealed envelopes cover which are opened in ref. to Order of Hon'ble High Court Dated:15.05.2024;
xi. Note-sheets Approval for opening of the above opened sealed envelope(s) and declaration of Result after opening of sealed covers of undersigned;
xii. Is there any promotion from E-7 to E-7A given in sealed cover and non-sealed cover to other candidates in the promotion interviews commenced on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023; If yes provide the count no. & the break-up of marks obtained by the last promoted candidate.
xiii. Total Nos. of regular employees of EESL and how many (Only Nos.) employees do not recommended promotion in consecutive 3 Cycles like Applicant in the history of EESL?
For all above grant inspection also. Necessary annexure(s) & Case Laws attached.”
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 08.08.2024 stating as under:
“This concerns your RTI application received in Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. (EESL) with reference number EESLT/R/E/24/00028. The response to your query is being duly furnished. The response based on the inputs provided by the deemed PIO(s) is being furnished as follows:
Response to query 1: The sealed cover was opened, and the outcome was
