Central Information Commission
Kusum Gupta vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 30 August, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSSSB/A/2021/652488-UM
Ms. Kusum Gupta
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi 110092
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2022
Date of Decision : 30.08.2022
Date of RTI application 18.06.2021
CPIO's response 23.08.2021
Date of the First Appeal 17.09.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.11.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 09 points, as under:-
etc. The CPIO, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, vide letter dated 23.08.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant:Present in Person Respondent: Mr. Manoj Surain S.O, Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that she had sought information regarding her ineligibility for the post of special Education Teacher. She stated that she gave the exam of SET and the said exam was started 40 minutes late from the actual time in lieu of which only 30 minutes was given to the candidates of that particular center. She accepted that due to the mental pressure on account of paucity of time she made a mistake while filling the bubbles in front of her roll number but the same mistake was also overlooked by the 2 invigilators present in her examination hall thus failing in their duty. She raised a point that despite the wrong bubbling her OMR sheet was evaluated and thereafter her name was there in the list of shortlisted candidates and she was also officially intimated about it. She added that upon the receipt of an email for the filling of e dossier she submitted all her documents on time but when the list of final selected candidates came her name was missing in the list. Hence she said she filed the RTI Application to get the related information. She further referred 2 similar cases 1. Preetisharma&Anr.V/S Govt.of NCT of Delhi &Anr. and 2. SujathaCheruku & Anr v/s The State of Telangana, in which the candidates were selected despite minor mistake that happened in the bubbling. But she said in the current case discrimination is being done with her which is a violation to her constitutional rights and her carrier is also at stake as this was her last attempt as per the age bar. She further informed that out of total 1300 seats less than 500 seats were filled and rest of the seats are still vacant.
The Respondent in reply stated that the OMR sheet is evaluated by the computer hence the case of mistake in filing the bubbles cannot be overlooked since the computer cannot take the wrong bubbling.
The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. She said the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving wrong information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to take appropriate information from the concerned department and furnish a suitable reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the personal details of the third parties.
Further the Commission directs Mr. Briju Raj, Deputy Secretary of DSSSB, to conduct an enquiry regarding the non-selection of the Appellant even after getting shortlisted and the fault of the examination center for not compensating enough time to her against the time lost in starting the exam and, if required, take appropriate action against the department in case it is found that the RTI application was not replied deliberately and with the mala fide intention. The commission observes that a job opportunity is a life time opportunity and can't be denied to a candidate in a small pretext or an unintentional mistake which would be against the principles of natural justice. A copy of the enquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the Appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598 / [email protected]
द्वदनांक / Date: 30.08.2022