Central Information Commission
Ms.Amin Hina Vinodchandra vs Staff Selection Commission on 5 November, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000643
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 5 November 2012
Date of decision : 5 November 2012
Name of the Appellant : Amin Hina Vinodchandra,
16, Chuval Nagar Society,
Somdev Nath, Mahadev, Meghani Nagar,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Staff Selection Commission,
US (EDP), Block No. 12,
Kendriya Karyalaya Parisar,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Randheep Thakur, US & CPIO, was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Ahmedabad studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. The Appellant had appeared in the CGL conducted by the SSC in 2010. It seems she was not recommended for appointment although she had more marks than the last selected candidate in her category. That is why, in her RTI application, she had wanted to know the reasons for this. The CPIO had CIC/SM/A/2012/000643 returned the application form claiming that the application fee was not paid in the right manner. Later, when the Appellant preferred an appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the CPIO of the EDP section to provide her with the appropriate information. It appears the CPIO of the relevant section had written to the Appellant on 5 January 2012 and informed her that she had not qualified in the DEST and, therefore, could not be considered for selection as Tax Asst.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that she had not received any clear information after such a long period of time to show why she was not found fit for the post even though she had higher marks than the last selected candidates. Besides, she also contended that she had done extremely well in the DEST (data entry skill test) and was surprised to know that she was declared failed in that. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that in uploading the test results, some error had crept in and candidates who had not been found fit were shown to have succeeded while those found fit had been shown as failed. This was corrected later and a revised result sheet was uploaded on 3 March 2011. The Appellant pointed out that even the socalled information uploaded on 3 March 2011 did not exactly show whether she had succeeded in the DEST or not.
5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. The way the results of this particular examination had been published leaves much to be desired. It is not surprising that the Appellant is confused. It is the responsibility of the SSC to assure every candidate about the objectivity and the authenticity of the examination process including the results finally declared. In the present case, CIC/SM/A/2012/000643 if passing in the DEST was a mandatory condition for being recommended for the post and the Appellant had not cleared this test, this fact should have been very clearly intimated to her. We direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order and provide the following information:
i. The copies of the relevant documents to show that the success in the examination was dependent on mandatorily clearing the DEST; ii. the photocopy of her DEST paper, if still available, showing the marks awarded to her as well as the marks awarded in this to the last selected candidate. Needless to say, the CPIO should clarify to the Appellant why she was not found fit.
6. We direct the CPIO to pass a speaking order while forwarding the above items of information so that the Appellant is left with no doubt about the reasons of her not being recommended for the post of Tax Asst.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
CIC/SM/A/2012/000643 (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000643