Central Information Commission
Gaurav Kumar Tyagi vs Indian Army on 31 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:CIC/IARMY/A/2018/173032
In the matter of:
Gaurav Kumar Tyagi
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer,
Headquarters, Base Workshop Gp EME,
Meerut Cantt- 250001
&
2. Central Public Information Officer,
EME Records, Secunderabad -500021
&
3. Central Public Information Officer,
IHQ of MoD(Army ), RTI Cell, Addl DG MT(AE), G - 6, D - 1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 17/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 27/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 18/09/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 30/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 13/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 31/12/2020 Date of Decision : 31/12/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Ms Varuna, Executive Engineer & CPIO, Meerut Cantt., Lt. Col. Anil, CPIO, EME Records, Secunderabad, both present over VC and Col. Jagdish, CPIO, Sena Bhawan, present over intra VC.
1Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the recruitment to the post of Store Superintendent in Base Workshop Gp EME, Corps of EME, Ministry of Defence, notified vide advertisement No. 09/2014 published in the Employment News dated 02-08 August,2014:
1. Only a reference has been made to the advertisement and no information has been sought.
2.Provide the certified copy of the list of final selected candidates for the post of Store Superintendent on the basis of interview held on 01/11/2015 at HQ Base Workshop Group EME (510 Army Base Workshop), Meerut.
3. Provide the total marks obtained by all the selected candidates for the above stated post of Store Superintendent.
4. Out of all selected candidates, how many have joined the Establishment / Army Base Workshop till date. Provide the certified copy of reserve list of candidates for the above stated post.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide complete information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case as the notice was returned undelivered with the remarks "No such person found". Further, since no other details of the appellant like email id or the mobile number were available on the records of the Commission, it was not possible to contact him. Therefore, the matter was heard ex-parte. However, the appellant in his second appeal memo had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. For points no. 2 & 3, he submitted that the information should be provided as the recruitment process is over and the other recruiting agencies such as UPSC & SSC publish marks of allthe candidates in public domain after completion of recruitment formalities. For points nos. 4 & 7, the CPIO had failed to provide the certified copies of the sought for documents and for point nos. 5 & 6, no information has been provided till date.
The CPIO, Ms Varuna submitted that a point-wise reply was given to the appellant on 27.08.2018.2
The CPIO, EME Records, Secunderabad submitted that on points no. 5 & 6, an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 24.09.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that with regard to point no.1, the appellant wants a copy of the final list of the selected candidates and the CPIO had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The contention of the appellant is that once the recruitment process is over, the list should be placed in public domain. During the hearing, the CPIO, Meerut Cantt. explained that they do not place such information in public domain, however, the results were displayed on their website for a limited time of 2-3 days and all the candidates were aware of the same. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and therefore, no further relief can be given on this point.
With regard to point no. 2, the Commission finds that the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is proper. With regard to points no. 4 & 7, the CPIO submitted that since this information is available on the Government portal, certified copies cannot be provided. The Commission is in agreement with the submissions of the CPIO and hence no further relief can be given on these points.
With regard to point no. 5& 6, it was enquired from the CPIO as to whether any reply was given by the PIO, EME Records after the RTI application was transferred to them, to which he submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 24.09.2018.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIOs and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) 3 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 4