Central Information Commission
Sachin Kumar Sharma vs Indian Air Force on 12 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IAIRF/A/2018/107838/SD
Sachin kumar Sharma ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate of Personal Services,
Air Head Quarters,
Vayu Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110106. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/10/2017
CPIO replied on : 15/11/2017
First appeal filed on : 28/11/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 10/01/2018
Second Appeal dated : Nil Diarized on 05.02.2018
Date of Hearing : 11/03/2019
Date of Decision : 11/03/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding AFCAT Batch January 2017 in terms of number of vacancies in Ground Duty (Accounts); number of candidates selected for Ground Duty (Accounts); marks obtained by him; reasons for non- selection; cut off marks for selection etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Wg Cdr Suman Adhikari, CPIO and Gp Capt C.K. Karthik, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Head Quarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi present in person.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and in particular with the denial of information under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act.
CPIO submitted that AFCAT marks were published on their website and it was intimated to the Appellant that the same is available in public domain. He further submitted that, however, SSB marks are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act as it is based on assessment of various aspects of a candidate such as psychological tests etc. Decision Commission observes that the CPIO has grossly erred in placing reliance on Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and has displayed sheer non-application of mind as Appellant merely sought to know the number of vacancies; number of candidates selected; marks obtained by him and cut-off marks for selection. Commission summarily rejects the exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act invoked by the CPIO as there is no scope of deeming the said information as being held in a fiduciary capacity.
In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply incorporating specific and complete information on paras 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
2
File No : CIC/IAIRF/A/2018/107838/SD
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
3