Central Information Commission
A. Muralidhar vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 29 April, 2024
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/DOP&T/A/2023/100416
A. Muralidhar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department Of Personnel
& Training, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.08.2022 FA : 05.09.2022 SA : 03.01.2023
CPIO : 30.08.2022 &
FAO : 14.10.2022 Hearing : 24.04.2024
19.10.2022
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2022 seeking information on the following points in the context that- 'I had applied for the position of Director (Operation), RINL on 11/04/2017 and appeared for interview on 20/06/2017. I had also applied for the position of Director(Technical), ECIL on 20/05/2017 and appeared for interview on 14/07/2017:
(i) "The evaluation criteria adopted by PESB for selection for the positions of Director (Operation), RINL and Director (Technical), ECIL.
(ii) Merit lists of candidates who have appeared for the positions of Director (Operation), RINL and Director (Technical), ECIL Page 1 of 4
(iii) Whether any marks are allotted to candidates during the selection process of above selections, if so kindly furnish a copy of the same.
(iv) A copy of proceedings of selection committee with reference to the above selections.
(v) Weightage given to Annual Performance Appraisal Reports of the respective candidates during the course of the selection."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "The selection process for the post of Director (Technical) was done through Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), therefore, PESB is not in a position to provide the evaluation criteria as the matter falls under the jurisdiction of Administrative Ministry/Department i.e. D/o Atomic Energy. W.r.t. selection process for the post of Director (Operations), RINL, the information is available at PESB website and may be accessed at https://pesb.gov.in.
(ii) -do-.
(iii) The CPIO is not in knowledge or in possession of such information.
(iv) W.r.t. selection process for the post of Director (Technical), ECIL, as mentioned
at Sr.No.1 above. W.r.t, selection process for the post of Director (Operations) RINL, copies of the note sheet are enclosed for kind perusal.
(v) As given i.r.o. reply to Question No. 3."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2022 particularly alleging that the information provided is for the period of 2019 but he has sought for the information related to the year 2017. The FAA vide order dated 14.10.2022 asked the CPIO to revisit the matter in light of the First Appeal grounds.
4. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a revised reply to the Appellant on 19.10.2022.Page 2 of 4
5. Aggrieved with the said reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.01.2023.
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Mohammad Jainuddin, US & CPIO along with Ashfaque Alam attended the hearing in person.
7. The Appellant feebly stated that he has been provided with misleading information.
8. The Respondent submitted that as for points 1,3 & 5 of the RTI Application, their reply remains unchanged but for points 2 & 4, it is urged with unconditional regret that despite the order of the FAA, in the compliance reply, the information was again inadvertently provided by the then CPIO for the year 2019 and not for 2017, hence upon taking note of the said omission, a revised reply has been provided to these points by him vide a letter dated 22.02.2024, sent via email to the Appellant. Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant alleged that the email as mentioned by the CPIO has not been received by him.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case takes grave exception to the omission caused by the then CPIO in having provided irrelevant information twice over, i.e. even after the FAA's intervention, the then CPIO did not bother to pay attention to the actual information sought for in the RTI Application. Nonetheless, at this stage, the present CPIO has provided the relevant information leaving no scope of any relief to be ordered in the matter. Since the Appellant has claimed non-receipt of the said revised reply, the Commission directs the CPIO to resend a copy of the reply of 22.02.2024 to the Appellant within 2 days of the receipt of this order.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 26.04.2024
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO M/o. Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department Of Personnel & Training, Public Enterprise Selection Board, CPIO, Block No-14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003
2. A. Muralidhar Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)