Central Information Commission
Shri Kundan Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 17 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00797 dated 18-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Kundan Kumar
Respondent: Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
FACTS
By an application of 23.3.2007 Shri Kundan Kumar of Chankayapuri, New Delhi applied to Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking the following information:
"(i) Total Marks obtained in each subject i.e. English (Paper I & II), Arithmetic, General Knowledge and Communication Skill.
(ii) Total Marks obtained by the last qualified candidate in each subject for both Assistants and Inspectors in OBC Category as I belong for the same.
(iii) Reason that I am not qualified for the interview."
To this he received a response from Shri V. K. Aggarwal dated 27.4.2007 as follows:-
"The process of result of Combined Graduate Level (Main) Examination 2005 is on and in view of this ,it is not found feasible to provide the information asked for till the declaration of the final result."
Not satisfied Shri Kundan Kumar moved his first appeal before Jt. Secretary (Admn.) and 1st Appellate Authority, SSC pleading as follows:-
"Reply given by SSC vide their letter dated 27.4.2007 is in contrary to sub section (8) of Section (7) of the Act. Neither the period of appeal nor the particulars of appellate authority has been mentioned. As far as reasons for not giving the desired information, it has been given mechanically that process of result is going on and at this stage it can't be given."
However, Shri L. Vishwanathan, Director dismissed this appeal through his letter of 23.5.2007 with the following comments:-
"According to the policy of the Commission, no information such as marks obtained by the candidate, cut off marks etc will be disclosed till the declaration of the final results of Combined Graduate Level (Main) Examination 2005."1
Appellant Shri Kundan Kumar's prayer before us is as below:-
"It is humbly submitted that while disposing my request neither the CPIO nor the Appellate Authority have mentioned that the desired information comes within Section (8) of the Act which states exemption from disclosure of information. It has also not been stated that under which provision of the afore said Examination, it comes within exemption from disclosure of information in accordance with Section 8 of the RTI Act and for which my request has been rejected. Further it is also not enable that he information which can be given after the declaration of the results, as informed, cannot be given at this stage. In any case, a candidate who has not qualified for interview, how disclosure of his marks obtained in each subjects will affect the process of result.
The refusal of my request is contrary to the RTI Act and the stand taken by CPIO/ Appellate Authority is not in accordance with aforesaid Act."
The appeal was heard on 17-11-08. Following are present.
Respondent Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secretary.
Although informed of the date of hearing through our notice dated 3.11.2008 Shri Kundan Kumar appellant opted not to be present. Shri V. K. Aggarwal submitted a written response dated 14.11.2008 to our notice indicating that now the results of the examination are out and therefore, they have no objection in disclosing information sought to appellant. In this context he has submitted as follows:-
"Commission has fixed up the cut off in Paper II for evaluation of Paper I. The minimum cut off, fixed up by the Commission for OBC category candidates for evaluation of Paper I was 87 whereas the candidate, Shri Kundan Kumar had got 90 marks in Paper II for evaluation of Paper I. The candidate had secured 43 marks in Paper I i.e. General English & General Studies, carrying 100 marks. The aggregate marks of Paper I & II obtained by the candidate are 133 out of the 200 marks. Thus, the candidate, Shri Kundan Kumar was selected under Scheme 'B'."
In his response Shri V. K. Aggarwal has also proceeded to present the difficulties faced by his Commission in complying with the time limit mandated by the RTI Act. In this context he has submitted the following statement.
2 No. of Application Received 2941
No. of Application Disposed off 2906
No. of Appeals Received 116
No. of appeals Disposed off 96
He has, therefore, pleaded his inability to adhere to time limits which in this case have been violated by four days, the information sought having become due on 24.4.2007 but supplied only on 27.4.2007.
DECISION NOTICE A copy of the submission received by us from the SSC may be endorsed to appellant Shri Kundan Kumar. Since this addresses the questions he has raised, there remains no further cause of action by us on this account. However, appellant has correctly pleaded that simply refusing information on the basis of a policy of a public authority cannot be ground for such refusal under the RTI Act whereunder information can only be refused if it is exempted from disclosure under any sub-section of section 8 (1). In this case none has been cited. Since the information sought now stands provided there is no requirement for any further order from us in this regard. However, CPIO, SSC Shri Aggarwal is cautioned that in refusing any RTI application in future such refusal must be based only on exemption granted under any sub- section of section 8 (1), also providing the reasons why such exemption has been relied upon. This will be in accordance with the ruling of Ravindra Bhat J. of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 3114/2007- Bhagat Singh Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors.
We have noted the difficulties pleaded by CPIO in adhering to time limits under the RTI Act. In this matter we have already advised DoPT under section 25 (5) of the RTI Act vide our decision in Daulatram Jhamnadas Nasra vs. SSC, case No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00398 of 6.6.'08 to ensure extension of such faculties to SSC as to enable them to bring their processing in conformity with the RTI Act, stating that " we reiterate our recommendation to DOPT that staffing of SSC be suitably strengthened to make it an effective instrument in dealing with the subject for which it has been created, and to 3 bring it into full conformity with the Act." This advice is again reiterated. However, since the information has not been supplied in time, the fee collected in this case will be refunded to appellant Shri Kundan Kumar, within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
This Appeal now stands disposed of. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. A copy may also be endorsed to Shri Rahul Sarin, Secretary DOPT to take further action on the advice extended under section 25 (5) of the RTI Act.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17-11-2008 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 17-11-2008 4