Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Saurabh Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 14 September, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई  द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/SSCOM/A/2020/694745

Saurabh Kumar                                          .....अपीलकता /Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
RTI Cell, Pratishtha Bhawan,
(Old CGO Building), 1st Floor,
South Wing, 101, Maharshi Karve
Road, Mumbai - 400020.                                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   06/09/2021
Date of Decision                  :   06/09/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   24/08/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   27/08/2020
First appeal filed on             :   09/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order   :   16/09/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   03/12/2020


                                        1
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 24.08.2020 seeking to know the reasons for rejection of his candidature in the Computer Based Examination (CBE) for Phase-VII/2019/Selection Posts WR11319 (Scientific Assistant M&E, Military Explosives for selection) in/for the (Director General Quality Assurance New Delhi) held on October 15th to 16th, 2019.

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 27.08.2020 as under:

"In your certificate it is mentioned that you are registered himself as a Ph.D student...

It cannot be considered an experience certificate. All documents have been scrutiny by user department only."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2020 on the following grounds:

"But many of premier institutes like CSIRs, IITs, IISC, IISERs, etc. They consider that Full-Time Research work done during Ph.D. A) er Obtaining the Essential Qualification can be claimed as an Experience certificate. Even in the recruitment process through UPSC and SSC, they also consider the same rules and regulations.

In my case, I have gained more than three years of experience from CSIR Indian Institute of petroleum, Dehradun in the field of chemicals during my full- time Ph.D work. Since, I have gained this work experience a) er completing my essential qualification (BSc & MSc). So, it must be considered as an experience certification for the recruitment process.

Therefore, I am requesting you to kindly look into this matter."

FAA's order dated 16.09.2020 upheld the CPIO's reply.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Pushpa Ekka, Section Officer & CPIO present through audio conference.

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him as based on the same educational qualifications and experience letter, SSC NR had released a letter for document verification while SSC WR has rejected his candidature for document verification stating that he has no experience.

The CPIO submitted that all the clarification has been already provided to him in response to the RTI Application. At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO supplemented the reply with further clarifications to address the apprehensions of the Appellant.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the issues raised by the Appellant in the First Appeal and Second Appeal do not concern seeking access to information but seeks justifications and redressal of grievance for rejecting his candidature. The relief sought for by the Appellant thereby is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.

The CPIO has provided an appropriate reply and has supplemented the same with further clarifications during the hearing to facilitate the Appellant in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4