Central Information Commission
P Nagabushan Rao vs East Coast Railway (Bhubaneswar) on 19 July, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No :CIC/ECRBH/A/2017/194984
In the matter of:
P Nagabushan Rao
...Appellant
Vs.
Dy CPO and (IR and W and PIO), O/o the Chief
Personnel Officer, East Coast Officer, Rail Sadan,
C S Pur, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa- 751017 ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 05.08.2016
CPIO reply : 17.08.2016
First Appeal : Not on Record
FAA Order : 27.09.2016
Second Appeal : 24.12.2016
Date of hearing : 04.04.2018, 29.06.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 05.08.2016 sought information on five points as to who were the officers who had been nominated to evaluate the answer scripts of the AOM/Gr. B selection examination conducted against 70% quota vacancy for the assessment period of 2015-17 for which a written test was held on 22.11.15. Information in regard to how many officers were nominated in the said examination, the names and designations of such officers, how many candidates were considered as passed in first evaluation and in subsequent evaluations of the answer scripts for the said selection and other related information were also sought. The CPIO replied on 17.08.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the order of the CPIO and filed a first appeal.
Page 1 of 4The first appeal memo was not on record. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 27.09.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 24.12.2016. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Appellant : Present on phone
Respondent : Shri Prem Kumar,
Chairman cum CPIO,
RRC, Bhubaneshwar
Due to technical problem over the VC facility, the hearing could not be conducted. Hence, the Commission was constrained to adjourn the case.
The registry of this bench is directed to fix another date for hearing. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Final Order : 29.06.2018
Appellant : Could not be contacted
Respondent : Shri Prem Kumar,
Chairman cum CPIO,
RRC, Bhubaneshwar
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 17.08.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 27.09.2016. He further submitted that the result was since declared. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant was not present to plead for his case.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the sought for information on point no. 1 i.e. names of the officers who had been nominated to evaluate answer scripts of the AOM/Gr. B selection Page 2 of 4 examination conducted against 70% quota vacancy for the assessment period of 2015-17 is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act but information regarding number of officers appointed for evaluating the said examination paper can be provided to the appellant.
On point no. 2, the respondent CPIO submitted that records of first evaluation were not available. He is directed either to provide information or to file an affidavit in this regard.
Be that as it may, since the requisite information is still not provided to the appellant in this case, the present respondent authority is ordered to provide complete information on point no. 2 in respect of the said RTI application, complete in all respects (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
OR In case the relevant records are not found available even after conducting thorough search once again, the present respondent CPIO is directed to submit an affidavit indicating the date of destruction / weeding out of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent authority authorising such destruction / weeding out within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
On point no.3, the respondent submitted that the sought for information had been already placed in the public domain. So, the respondent PIO is directed to provide hard copies of marks given by each evaluating officers to the candidates who had appeared in the above mentioned examination, to the appellant. The sought for information on point no. 4 is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The information sought on point no. 5 is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the same cannot be provided to the appellant as it relates to answer sheets of other candidates .
Page 3 of 4Be that as it may, since requisite information in regard to some points is still not provided to the appellant in this case, the present respondent authority is ordered to provide information on point no. 1 and on point no. 3 as discussed above (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar Page 4 of 4