Before the Appellate Authority under Right to lnformation Act, 2005

Reserve Bank of lndia, Central Office, Mumbai

Appeal No:6041212O18

Name of the Appellants : Shri Rajeev Ghauhan

Date of receipt of fee for RTI Application 2010712018
GPIO, Human Resource Management Department (HRMD):"
IRBIND/R/2018/53566(Reply dated: 10/08/2018- Annex)l
Date of receipt of First Appeal :1010812O18

1. The papers have been perused and the contents ofthe appeal have been considered.
Ground
2. Refused access to information requested.
My observations
3. The appellant had filed an RTI application with RBl, seeking certain information related
to the recruitment of Assistants for 623 posts advertised by RBI in 2017 such as the stage
at which recruitment process is, cut off marks for various categories, the criteria being
followed for recruitment of Ex-servicemen etc. The present appeal is against the reply
issued in respect of query No. 4.

4. ln query No. 4, the appellant had sought to know the number of ex-servicemen selected
in last 4 years against seats reserved for them in the recruitment for Assistant in RBl. The
appellant had also sought category wise details of cut off marks in both preliminary and
Mains examinations. ln reply, the CPIO, HRMD has advised the appellant that the
information sought is not available in compiled form and compiling it would
disproportionately divert the resources of RBl. Compiling and collating scattered
information, that too relating to a period of 4 years from all centres of RBl, could
disproportionately divert the resources of RBl, which Section 7(9) of the RTI Act seeks to
prevent. ln this regard, a reference may be made to the order passed by the CIC in the
case of Shri Kishanlal Mittal v. CPIO, RBll wherein the CIC was pleased to observe as
follows:

t ClClSclAlZOLL1003606/17258/VS (Decided on October 4, 2013)

 "31. The situation rn thrs case is that collection and collation of the
information sought would entait disproportionate diversion of the resources
of the public authority. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act seeks fo prevent this. It
is with this purpose that the FAA has cited section 7(9) in his order.
32. There is no apparently sufficient reason to inteiere with the operational
part of the FAA's order, which asks fhe RTI applicant to seek specific
information rather than information considered to be in the nature of "fishing
and roving" information and enquiries. Actually, the FAA's order directing
the RTI applicant towards specificity should not be perceived as adverse to
the interests of the information seeker."

5. ln view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

6. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

This order may be served on the Appellant

( Pa
l*q
rv{thylf. SL nda ram )
Executive Director & Appellate Authority
17 10912018