Delhi High Court
Group Captain Nataraj Paul ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2017
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5988/2017
GROUP CAPTAIN NATARAJ PAUL (RETD.) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S. S. Pandey with Mr H. S.
Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rahul Sharma, Sr. Standing
counsel for UOI with Mr C. K. Bhatt,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 18.07.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner - who has retired from the services of the Indian Armed
Forces - has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 24.01.2017
(hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the Central Information
Commission (CIC). It is the petitioner‟s case that he was placed at no.10 of
the reserve list for consideration by a Promotion Board. According to the
petitioner, all officers from the main list except three were promoted. Those
three officers were, at the material time, overseas on deputation. However,
their vacancies were not filled up and were reserved to be filled up on their
return. The petitioner has some grievance with regard to this procedure also
but that is not a subject matter of the present petition. The petitioner also
states that officers who in the reserve list were ahead of him were also
promoted.
2. The petitioner claims that on return of the three officers, two were
promoted but one was found to be in low medical category and, therefore, he
was denied the promotion. The petitioner further states that vacancy that
was kept for the officer who was declared as low medical category (Gp.
Capt. P.I. Murlidharan) was subsequently filled by an officer of the reserve
list. The petitioner states that nine officers from the reserve list had already
been promoted and he believes that an officer placed below his position in
the reserve list was promoted to fill up the vacancy that remained on account
of non promotion of Gp. Capt. P.I. Murlidharan on account of his being
medically unfit.
3. In the above context, the petitioner filed an application under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter „the Act‟) seeking the following
information:-
"(1) Please provide copy of the initiating
note/letter/application or any other form of
communication by Gp Capt. Malhotra/Gp Capt Bali or
any other officer or appointment regarding reserving 3
vacancies of Gp Capt to Air Cmde PB 2003 for officers
on foreign posting during 2003-2004; who were on the
Main List of PB 2003 (Gp Capt to Air Cmde).
(2) What was the reason for reserving these vacancies of
PB 2003 visavis PB 2004 (Gp Capt to Air Cmde)
(3) Remarks of civilian offr dealing with Gp Capt and
above, ACAS (PO), AOP and CAS on item (1) above.
(4) Can you provide a copy of M/List and Reserve List of
PB 2003 (Cp Capt) to AirCmde).
(5) Who from the Reserse List of 2003 was given the rank
of Air Cmde which Gp Capt Murlidharan (med unfit
for promotion) was to wear on his return from
ISLAMABAD.
(6) Why was Gp Capt N Paul (13601), who was originally
No.10 and on RL No.1 by 31 Mar 2004 not given the
rank of Air Cmde? Upto RL No.9 was cleared for the
rank of Air Cmde from PB 2003."
4. The said information was denied by the CPIO by a letter dated
20.03.2015. The petitioner appealed against the same to the First Appellate
Authority (FAA), which was also dismissed by an order dated 29.04.2015.
This led the petitioner to file a second appeal before the CIC, which was
disposed of by the impugned order.
5. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the CIC had
considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner and had passed the
impugned order; the operative part of which is set out below:
"In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the CPIO to
provide relevant and available information regarding how the
vacancy of the particular Promotion Board under reference
was treated or was utilized by Dte. of Pers., Air HQ(VB). In
doing so, if the records pertaining to this information contains
name, details of any third parties, the same should be
adequately blacked out or relevant portion can be extracted as
per the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act and be
provided to the Appellant."
6. This Court finds no reason to differ with the view expressed by the
CIC that notings and deliberations of the Promotion Board are confidential
and third party information; more so, when the same is not the subject
matter of contest in the present petition. The limited grievance articulated
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that redacting of the name of the
officer who was promoted to the vacancy in question (stated to be the
vacancy that remained on account of non promotion of Gp. Capt. P.I.
Murlidharan) defeats the object of seeking the information. The petitioner,
essentially, wants to confirm whether an officer below his position in order
of the reserve list was promoted. This Court finds no reason why this
information should be denied to the petitioner and, accordingly, the
impugned order is modified to the limited extent of further directing the
respondents to disclose the name of the officer who was promoted to fill the
vacancy in question and whether he was below the position of the petitioner
in the reserve list.
7. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
8. Order dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 18, 2017
MK
