Central Information Commission
K Mariselvam vs Staff Selection Commission on 12 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2017/185759
K Mariselvam
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Govt. of India,
Staff Selection Commission,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Block No 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
&
PIO, Staff Selection Commission,
Southern Region, 2nd Floor, EVK
Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai - 600006. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 27.06.2017
CPIO reply : 11.07.2017
First Appeal : 16.10.2017
FAA Order : 16.11.2017
Second Appeal : 21.12.2017
Date of hearing : 23.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 27.06.2017 sought information on four points as under:
1. How many persons were proposed to be selected for TamilNadu for the post of BSF through Staff Selection Commission in the year 2012 and how many vacancies were reserved for OBC category.
2. Whether the SSC had filled all the vacancies allotted to TamilNadu state under OBC category along with entire details of selected candidates including Page 1 of 4 marks secured in physical fitness test, written examination and medical test separately.
3. Other related information.
The CPIO replied on 11.07.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 16.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 21.12.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri G Nayak
Under Secretary(C1/2)/CPIO, SSC &
Shri Rama Krishnan
Assistant Director
SSC, New Delhi.
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 11.07.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 16.11.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant. On point no. 1 of the above stated RTI Page 2 of 4 application, a copy of advertisement regarding selection for the post of General Duty Constables BSF for the year 2012 should be provided. In regard to the first part of point nos. 1 & 3 of the said RTI application, a revised reply should be provided. However, it is seen that the latter part of point no. 2 is covered under exemption stipulated u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, hence information on this part cannot be provided. On point 4, it was noted by the Commission that the respondent CPIO in his reply had stated that this point had been forwarded to the CRPF Centre, RTC, ITBP Police. The reply was not proper. The CPIO should have transferred this point to the custodian of information or sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and provided proper reply to the appellant which was not done in the present case. The CPIO is directed to provide final reply to the appellant on point no. 4 for which he can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act or in case the records are not available in regard to this point, he is directed to file an affidavit in this regard to the Commission affirming this fact with a copy of the said affidavit duly endorsed to the appellant.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO Shri G Nayak, Under Secretary/CPIO, SSC is directed to provide revised point wise reply on all points of the above mentioned RTI application as discussed above complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
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 Page 3 of 4 In case the relevant records on point no. 4 of the above stated RTI application are not available even after thorough search the present, the 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.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 4 of 4