Central Information Commission
Shri B.B.L. Srivastava vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 17 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00368 dated 12-2-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri B.B.L. Srivastava
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
FACTS
By an application of 20-9-2007 Shri B.B.L. Srivastava of Krishan Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi applied to CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:
"1. Is it true that UPSC had invited applications for the 30 posts of executive engineers in Ministry of Road Transport & Highways in the year 2001-02, if yes, give all the details and copy of advertisement published by UPSC.
2. How many applications were received, how many were short listed for interview, how many attended the interview and for how many letters recommending their selection was issued by UPSC. Please give the list of persons finally selected.
3. Is it true that the mandatory condition was five years experience in Highways. If not, please specify the same.
4. Is it true that the two persons namely Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Shri Khushal Chand were selected by UPSC against the above posts.
5. The photo copies of Bio-data of both Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Shri Khushal Chand are enclosed at Annexure I & II. Please verify the experience of this two persons in Highways at the time of selection.
6. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma was working in All India Radio and does not possess the mandatory experience in Highways at the time of selection. Please state how he was selected in this post?
7. Shri Khushal Chand was working in NPCC and does not possess the mandatory experience in Highways at the time of selection. Please state how he was selected in this post?
8. How much money was taken for illegally recruitment of above two persons when they did not have the mandatory experience.
9. State Names and designations of all the persons who had processe4d, associated and interviewed the above two candidates.
10. Since the above two persons were recruited by malafide means and now brought to then notice of UPSC, in how many days UPSC will remove the above two persons from service.1
11. In how many days the entire list of 30 Executive Engineers recommended by UPSC to Ministry of Road Transport & Highways will be cancelled by UPSC.
12. In how many days, all the persons associated with this recruitment scam of UPSC will be punished.
Since the persons selected by UPSC were ineligible ,the selection is a SCAM and against Public Interest. This is an act of corruption by UPSC in selection of ineligible persons. Therefore, there is no protection under RTI Act 2005 to protect the corrupt persons and hence the above information details and documents must be furnished in prescribed time limit."
To this he received a response dated 18.10.2007 from CPIO Shri A. K. Singh, Dy. Secretary, UPSC as follows:-
'1. The Commission had invited applications for the 30 posts of Executive Engineer (Civil), Ministry of Road transport and Highways vide item No. 15 of Advt No. 18 which was published in all the leading newspapers and also in Employment News on 22.9.2001. A copy of the said Advt. is enclosed herewith.
2. In response to the Advt. of the Commission, a total number of 1196 applications were received. A total number of 124 candidates were short listed for the interview and 110 candidates attended the interview. A list of 30 candidates recommended by the Commission vide its letter dated 14.8.2002 is enclosed herewith.
3. As per the Advt. Of the said post, five years experience in Design and Construction of Highways and the Machinery used in construction of Highways is prescribed.
4. The two candidates mentioned here namely Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Khushal Chand were recommended by the Commission vide its letter dated 14.8.2002. 5, 6&7 Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Khushal Chand had applied for the said post in response to the Commission's Advt. published on 22.9.2001. The necessary information/ documents provided by them to the Commission in their respective applications bearing Roll Ni. 194 and 195 respectively were considered by the Commission. They were short listed for the interview based on the duly approved criteria by the Commission. On their performance in the Interview Board, these two candidates were recommended by the Commission to the Ministry. The applications of all the recommended candidates by the Commission were sent to the Ministry for taking the further necessary action on their part. Hence, any information/ documents enclosed in the applications by the recommended candidates are not available with the Commission.
28. The allegation made in this point is totally baseless and hence denied.
9. The Commission have taken up with the Govt. of India in the Department of Personnel & Training, the question of providing exemption from sharing such sensitive information with the applicants under RTI Act 2005 under section 8 of 30 (i) of the RTI Act, as this would otherwise undermine the selection process. The decision of the Govt. of India in this regard is still awaited and pending such a decision, the Commission have taken a conscious decision not to share such information with the applicants under the RTI Act, 2005. In the circumstances, the information pertaining to names, designations of all the persons who had processed/ associated and interviewed the recommended candidates cannot be provided to you. 10&11 In reply to these points the recruitment process in this case is complete as the recommendation letter has already been issued to the Ministry. This recruitment process is irreversible.
13. In reply to this point, there is no anomaly or discrepancy till date in this recruitment case. Hence, the averments made in this points is strongly denied.
Insofar as inspection of the file is concerned, it is stated that the file noting in the case relates to functioning of Commission's core areas and also contain the personal details of the candidates which hare exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of RTYI Act, 2005 and which also conforms to the judgement of CIC in appeal no. 25/ICE(A)/06 (File No. 11/98/2006 & 11/49/06- CIC dated 17.4.06 in case of Dr. D. B. Singh vs. UPSC).
The averments made in the concluding para of your letter dated 20.9.2007 is baseless and hence denied."
Not satisfied, however, Shri B.B.L. Srivastava moved an appeal before Shri Nuruddin Ansari, JS (Recruitment), UPSC challenging the information provided on the following grounds as follows:-
"1. In para 2 of UPSC letter referred above 1 , it has been stated that the total applications received were 1196 but as per the copy of the UPSC letter No. F. /211/2000-R-VI dated 4.6.2002 provided by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways under RTI Act 2005 the number of applications received were 1207. This establishes beyond doubt that UPSC was deliberately given wrong information under RTI Act 2005 and attracts severe penalties as per the provisions of the Act. Please explain why wrong information has been provided.1
The reference is to the information provided by CPIO 3
2. Please give the complete list of candidates who had applied.
3. The malafide modus-operandi of UPSC adopted for recruiting in eligible persons gets further established from the fact that vide letter dated 18.10.2007, the number candidates short listed is mentioned as 124 but as per letter dated 4.6.2002 signed by Shri K. S. Sabharwal, Under Secretary, UPSC, the number candidates selected for interview were 177. Please explain why wrong information has been provided.
4. the law does not give any protection for corruption, be its protection or promotion or defence. The persons like Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Shri Khushal Chand were not having the mandatory experience of five years in Highway6 at the time of recruitment/ interview in 2002. This has been established from the copy of Bio-datas and experience certificates provided by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways under RTI Act 2005. Therefore, please state the complete para-wise information as asked for."
Shri Nuruddin Ansari, Jt. Secretary and Appellate Authority in his order of 15.12.2007, however, dismissed the appeal with the following order;-
'3. Related to information sought under Sl. No. 1 of the letter under reference, it is informed that the variation in number of applications occurred due to 11 applications which were received in duplicate and were subsequently merged into the respective applications. The total applications including the amalgamated applications were indeed 1196. Whereas independently there were 1207 applications . There was as such no wrong information.
4. As per record retention schedule of the Commission applications of candidates who were not called for interview are destroyed after 6 months from the date of publication of result. As such the complete list with the name of the candidates can not be provided.
5. Concerning Sl. No. 3 it is informed that the information given is correct since candidature of 53 conditional candidates were rejected for failing to submit related documents within stipulated time. The final call for interview was made to 124 candidates. There was as such no wrong information.
6. As requested vide para 4 of the appeal, the para wise reply has been furnished above. So far as para 5 is concerned, as there is no specific issue related to the subject, therefore, needs no comment.
7. The appeal of the appellant does not as such warrant any specific circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the matter.' 4 Shri B.B.L. Srivastava's prayer before us in second appeal is as follows:-
"This establishes beyond doubt that a scam had taken place in recruitment of 30 Executive Engineers (Civil).
Such a recruitment of ineligible persons by UPSC and Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways is against the Public Interests and National Interests. Any act to protect and defend the persons involved in this recruitment Scam at National Level is also an act against the Public and Nation. From this case, it would be established that a recruitment racket is flourishing in UPSC and it is on one pretext or other to protect their corrupts Practices, Vested and Personal Interests at the cost of Public & National interests.
Hence, I request your honour in order to protect Public Interest, Direct the UPSC to give photo copy of entire file including notings of File no. F. 1/211/2000-R.VI as well as allow inspection this file."
The appeal was heard on 17-7-2009. The following are present.
Respondents Shri Ashok Mehta, Dy. Secretary.
Shri M. Sharma, Dy. Secretary.
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate.
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate.
Ms. Manisha Badoni, Advocate.
Although informed of the date of hearing through our notice of 6-7-2009 appellant Shri B.B.L. Srivastava opted not to be present.
DECISION NOTICE Having examined the record we find that the information sought by Shri B.B.L. Srivastava has, to the extent held by the UPSC, been provided. As mentioned by appellate authority some of the information sought cannot be provided as it has already been destroyed according to the Retention Schedule of the UPSC. Besides, in the view of appellant Shri B.B.L. Srivastava who reiterated this both in first and in second appeals, it has been established "beyond doubt that the scam has taken place in recruitment of 30 Executive Engineers (Civil)". In such cases clearly this Commission has no role. If in the view of appellant there is no doubt that a scam has been 5 occurred, the purpose of the RTI Act has been served, nad the appropriate authority for him to approach is now the Central Vigilance Commission before whom he is free to move an application. The application considered in the present appeal having been serviced to the full extent mandated under the RTI Act 2005, this appeal is now dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17-7-2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17-7-2009 6