Central Information Commission
Mr.Shikha Malhotra vs Department Of Science And Technology on 30 December, 2009
89 Shikha Malhotra Vs NPL Hearing and Decision on 30 12 2009
Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
110066
Telefax: 01126180532 & 01126107254 Website: cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000089
Appellant : Ms. Shikha Malhotra
Public Authority : National Physical Laboratory,
Dr. K.S. Krishnan Road, New Delhi
110012
(through Ms. Veena Jain,
Administrative Officer, NPL, New
Delhi; &
Shri Rajeev Sharma, Section Officer,
E.III & E.IV, NPL, New Delhi)
Date of Hearing : 30/12/2010
Date of Decision : 30/12/2010
Facts:-
The appellant Ms. Shikha Malhotra, made a request under the RTI Act, 2005 on 17/04/2009 to the CPIO, National Physical Laboratory, in which she asked for information on the following questions:-
"(1) Name of the candidates in order of merit as recommended by Selection Committee.
(2) Name of the candidates approved by Competent Authority. (3) In case it is not possible to give above information the reasons for the same may be indicated.
(4) The reasons for delay in announcing the result. (5) When the results are likely to be declared? (6) If it is because earlier interviews are proposed to be cancelled, the ground for the same may be indicated.
(7) How the interest of the candidates who have been recommended on merit are being protected?
(8) Kindly confirm whether it is being ensured that the candidates who have been already interviewed will be required to be interviewed again? (9) In case all the candidates are proposed to be interviewed again, whether the legal implications of such unusual procedure has been examined."
2. The CPIO responded to her vide letter of 11/05/2009 informing that the Appointing Authority had quashed the proceedings for the posts inquired about in the interest of fairness of selection. The reason for quashing of the proceedings for the two post codes, namely, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 was for "administrative reasons".
3. The appellant Ms. Shikha Malhotra, made the first Appeal on 04/06/2009 and received reply on 24/06/2009 with which she was not satisfied and proffered a Second Appeal before the Commission on 18/09/2009. The notice was issued to the appellant and the Appellate Authority on 23/12/2009. The representatives of the Appellate Authority brought before the Commission the original file pertaining to the examination process for the said two categories of posts. An examination of the file showed that the results of the other examinations conducted for filling up posts in the fields of Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and Electronics/Instrumentation were filled in through the selection process and subsequently declared. Simultaneously, it was announced that the posts for physics and chemistry were not filled in since the appointing authority has decided to hold the interviews again for these positions. The recommendations of the Selection Committee was kept pending with the Director, who was also the appointing authority for five months and then noted "I have received some complaints about this selection. Therefore, it is best to re-invite the same candidates before newly constituted Selection Committee in the interest of fairness in selection." (note of 30/04/2009). A perusal of NPL File No.20(7)(170)/2006-E.IV shows that the proceedings were in fact quashed on the basis of three anonymous complaints dated 19/12/2008, 05/01/2009 and 07/01/2009. It is most surprising that the results of a selection process completed through duly constituted Selection Committee should be set aside after a delay of five months on the basis of three anonymous complaints. The conclusion of the administrative head of NPL that the selection process has been vitiated on account of receipt of these three letters is not in keeping with the accepted administrative norms. It is also surprising to note that E.IV Section in their noting of 23/11/2009 has noted as follows:-
"The perusal of the content of her RTI's leave no doubt that the decision taken by the Appointing Authority to quash the selection proceedings for the post code 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 is correct in the interest of fairness of selection procedure.
This is also added that no other application or RTI in this subject has been received so far.
All in all, it is the incumbent upon the Appointing Authority to ensure that selection process in the Laboratory carried out/done in impartial, fair and also in a manner that is impeccable and unimpeachable. This responsibility of Appointing Authority gets further onerous, when the selections are made purely (100%) based on interviews i.e. there is no written test as in this recruitment/selection process. To allay your doubts, it is again submitted that Appointing Authority took about 05 months to arrive at a conscious decision to quash the two selection proceedings i.e. for the post code 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 in the area of Physics and Chemistry without prejudice to the interest of any particular candidate. It may be appreciated that the recruitment/selection processes are sensitive matters requiring maintenance of the confidentiality of the highest order. The appointing Authority/public authority while discharging this onerous responsibility always exercise due care and caution by striking a fine balance between the credibility of the system as also the fairness to the applicants. The appointing authority receives complaints/feedbacks from various sources and take a decision which is in the best interest of the organisation. The powers of the appointing authority to take a decision in such matters is sacrosanct and inviolable when it comes to safeguarding the interest of the majority of the candidates vis-à-vis an individual."
4. After a thorough perusal of the file, the Commission has not found any facts which would lead us to the conclusion that the first selection process was not fair since there are only three anonymous complaints in this regard.
5. In any case it is not understood how the Department has decided to re- advertise the post codes 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 when the directions to them were to re- invite the same candidate to appear before a newly constituted Committee.
DECSION
6. In view of the above, the Commission directs that the appellant be provided with a copy of the names of the candidates and order of merit as recommended by the Selection Committee. She may also be provided with copies of the anonymous complaints which appear to be the reason for delay in announcing the result along with the date on which the result will now be declared. She may also be provided with full information raised by her in her RTI application within two weeks of receipt of this order by the public authority.
Sd/-
(Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(Tarun Kumar) Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar Copy to:
1. Ms. Shikha Malhotra, EA-123, First Floor, Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012.
2. Ms. Veena Jain, Administrative Officer & CPIO, National Physical Laboratory, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Road, New Delhi-110012.
3. Officer Incharge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC
5. Sr. PPS to IC(DS)