Central Information Commission
Shri Kundan Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) & ... on 2 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00019 dated 15.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Kundan Kumar
Respondent - Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Dep't. of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Facts:
By an application of 23.3.07 Shri Kundan Kumar of Chanakya Puri, New Delhi applied to Shri V. K. Agarwal, Under Secretary, SSC seeking the following information, regarding Scheme 'A' in the Combined Graduate Level (Main) Exam, 2005:
"(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 reply of 27.4.07 from Shri V. K. Aggarwal, US 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."
Aggrieved by this Decision, Shri Kundan Kumar moved an appeal before the Jt. Secretary (A) and Appellate Authority SSC on 14.5.07 grounded on the following:
"It is pertinent to mention that 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 cannot be given.1
Refusal of my request by this way himself turns down any hope of mine to appear in the interview, understood to be commenced shortly. The basis of my desired information is also helpful to SSC for rectifying some procedural lapses, miscalculation of marks, typing error etc., if any, in my case."
However, in his order of 23.5.07 Shri L. Vishwanathan, Director and Appellate Authority, SSC dismissed the appeal in the following words:
"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 result of Combined Graduate Level (Main) Examination, 2005."
On this basis Shri Kundan Kumar has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer :
"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. Denial of giving information in the matter by this way turns down any hope of mine to appear in the interview. The basis of my desired information is also helpful to SSC for rectifying some procedural lapses, miscalculation of marks, typing error etc., if any, in this regard."
The appeal was heard on 2.7.09. The following are present :
Appellant Shri Kundan Kumar Respondents Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. (A) It was pointed out to DS(A) SSC Ms. Gayatri Sharma that departmental policy cannot override the law and only such information as is listed in sub sec. (1) of Sec. 8 qualifies for exemption. Ms. Sharma, however, submitted that the issues in the present case have already been decided in another appeal announced on 17.11.'08 bearing No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00797 Kundan Kumar vs. SSC, upon which the following orders were issued:
"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 2 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 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."
DECISION NOTICE From the above, it will appear that this appeal is infact a duplicate of the earlier appeal. Appellant Shri Kundan Kumar, who had not appeared in the hearing of that appeal, submitted that he had not received letter of 22.6.2009. A copy together with is enclosure was, therefore, handed over to the appellant in the hearing, with the advice that if he feels that this information is not in full compliance with the orders of this Commission in the above appeal, he is welcome to make a representation to this Commission. However, the matter having already been disposed of and the earlier appeal already having been 3 decided upon, there is no ground for passing fresh orders in this matter. The present appeal is, therefore, infructuous and treated as withdrawn.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 2.7.2009 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 2.7.2009 4