Central Information Commission
Mr. Chandan Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 28 February, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001720
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 28 February 2013
Date of decision : 28 February 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Chandan Kumar,
C/o. Shri Rambachan Pandey,
Vill - Morauna, Post Durgadh,
PS - Bikramganj, Distt - Rohtas, Bihar.
Name of the Public Authority : Shri Satya Prakash,
Under Secretray,
Staff Selection Commissin,
(US C1)/1) Block No. 12, Kendriya
Karyalaya, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Satya Prakash, US was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant did not turn up in the Rohtas studio of the NIC, in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard his submissions.
3. It appears the Appellant had appeared in the examination conducted by the SSC in April 2012 for the FCI. In respect of that examination, he had wanted certain details about both his Mathematics and English papers. When he did not receive any response from the CPIO in time, he had complained to CIC/SM/A/2012/001720 the CIC. We had directed the Appellate Authority to look into the matter and to ensure that the information was disclosed. Following this, the Appellate Authority had passed an order on 28 December 2012 with the observation that the desired information, that is, the photocopies of the OMR answer sheets of both the papers, had since been sent to the Appellant on 27 November 2012.
4. The fact of the matter is that the desired information was not provided in time. The respondent explained that the delay was not on account of any fault on the part of the CPIO but mostly because of various logistical and systemic problems. He submits that the SSC conducts several examinations in a year in which several hundreds of thousands of candidates appear. The communications received and sent in connection with these examinations clog the system so much that the RTI related communications get mixed up with the remaining communications and never reach the CPIO concerned in time or the reply sent also gets dispatched late. Be that as it may, it is the responsibility of the public authority to ensure a system in which the RTI application is given priority and attended to without any loss of time.
5. In this case, there is no further information to be disclosed since the evaluated answer sheets have already been provided to the Appellant along with the other information.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner CIC/SM/A/2012/001720 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001720