Central Information Commission
Shri R. Qaiser vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Oicl) & ... on 23 December, 2009
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
*****
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01470
Dated: 23rd December, 2009
Review Petitioner : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OICL) Appellant : Shri R. Qaiser.
Respondents : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OICL) & General Insurers'[Public Sector] Association of India This is the review petition filed by respondents viz,. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OICL) relating to Commission's Order dated 30.3.2009 in Case Nos. CIC/AT/A/2008/01470 & CIC/AT/C/2008/00685 in the appeal-cum-complaint filed by Shri R. Qaiser of Pune against The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OICL) & General Insurers'[Public Sector] Association of India(GIPSA).
2. The following table indicates the queries raised by the appellant Shri R. Qaiser in his RTI-request dated 21.6.2008 and the decisions of the Commission thereon:
RTI queries Commission's decision
i) The marks secured by me (the appellant) To disclose the information.
in ASCI exercise, interview and CR
ii) The above information in respect of all To disclose the information.
the candidates who appeared in the exercise including the candidate who is the last in the promotion/seniority list
iii) According to the GIPSA notification This item of query was interrogatory in dated 24.04.2008, 12 vacancies for the nature and thus cannot be classified as post of General Manager were declared. information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Why only eleven candidates were Respondents, nevertheless, in order to promoted? satisfy the appellant, were ready to allow him to inspect the relevant file. Hence the inspection of files was allowed.
vi) In the past also, during three previous To disclose the information. exercises (excluding present one) how many vacancies were declared, how many candidates were called and how many were finally promoted?
Shri R. Qaiser Vs. OICL & GIPSA : Appeal Case No. A-8/1470 Page 1 of 43. In the review petitioner dated 23.4.2009, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. pleaded, inter-alia, as under:
i) During the hearing it was informed by the respondents that the disclosable information had already been disclosed to the appellant vide letters dated 10.10.2008 and 12.11.2008. However, it was not mentioned in the above order.
Moreover, Commission did not consider the submissions made by them during the course of hearing on 18.3.2009.
ii) Break-up of the marks cannot be subject matter of the proceedings arising out of RTI application dated 21.6.2008 as these are exempted u/s 8(1)(d),(e), (g) &
(j). The rationale of the same was that if the identity of the examiner was disclosed, it would endanger the life and physical safety of the examiner. Further, it would be impossible to keep the identity of the Reporting Officer confidential.
iii) There was an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the order dated 30.3.2009 was liable to be reviewed.
Respondents also requested the Commission for grant of a personal hearing before taking final decision in the matter.
4. Accordingly, a hearing was fixed in the matter and respondents (review- petitioners) were directed to furnish a copy of their review-petition to the appellant Shri R. Qaiser for his comments, if any.
5. In his written submission dated 10.07.2009, the appellant Shri R. Qaiser inter- alia, informed as follows:
i) He had asked for marks secured by him in ASCI exercise, interview and CR.
Instead of giving break-up of marks, he was given consolidated marks vide letter dated 10.10.2008. Thus, the respondents' statement that break-up of the marks cannot be subject matter of the proceedings arising out of RTI application dated 21.6.2008, was not correct.
ii) The respondents OICL were repeatedly advising him to go to GIPSA for the information, as the GIPSA was the holder-of-the-information in the matter. If the GIPSA was the holder-of-the-information, why the application was not transferred to them earlier.
iii) With regard to the plea of the respondents that break-up of the marks are exempted u/s 8(1)(d),(e), (g) & (j), he stated that the respondents had not taken this plea during the hearing. Now, they were raising this plea. "The settled law is one cannot take new pleas at review appeal stage." Accordingly, Commission should reject the review petition.
iv) The candidates who appeared in selection process for promotion to the cadre of General Manager were all Sr. Dy. G.M. having put in more than 20 years Shri R. Qaiser Vs. OICL & GIPSA : Appeal Case No. A-8/1470 Page 2 of 4 service and none of them was facing any criminal charges. Thus, making such wild allegation amounted to character assassination by GIPSA / OICL and was an exercise to deny him promotion in future. In fact, after taking up the matter with the Commission, he was not promoted in the subsequent promotion exercise. In the promotion policy there has not been any provision of appeal against non-promotion.
v) Since the Senior officers of the industry throughout the country were involved, the doctrine of larger public interest justified the disclosure of such information more so when it related to PSUs.
6. Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 29.6.2009, matter was heard on 22.7.2009 through video conferencing. Appellant was present in person at NIC facility at Pune; while respondents were present in the Commission's Court Room, represented by Shri S.K. Chanana, GM & AA; Shri P.K. Jha, Dy. GM & CPIO; Shri V.V. Mollick, Manager of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Shri A.K. Singhal, Sr. VP(HR) and Shri R. C. Jain, CE, GIPSA.
7. During the hearing, the petitioners (respondents) clarified that review-petition was filed relating to the Commission's decision on item nos. (i) & (ii) only. They further stated that they had already given to the appellant the consolidated marks secured by him in respect of item no. (i); and the cut off mark in reply to item no. (ii). They re-iterated that giving the break-up of marks would endanger the life and physical safety of the examiner. Further, it would be impossible to keep the identity of the reporting officer confidential and therefore, prayed that the review petition be accepted.
Decision & Observations
8. Heard the parties and perused the written submissions filed by both parties. It is observed that the appellant Shri R. Qaiser had indeed asked for the break up of marks viz. marks secured in ASCI exercise, interview and CR. However, vide letter dated 10.10.2008, respondents disclosed the following information relating to item nos. (i) and (ii):
"Item (i): The consolidated mark secured by you in the promotion exercise (2008-09) to scale VII is 79.46%."
Item (ii): The cut off mark in the above mentioned exercise was 86%."
9. Commission's decision dated 29.8.2007 in the case of Harish Saliyavar Vs. LIC in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00734 was that:-
"The exemption-Section stated by the respondents, viz. Section 8(1)(e) for declining to disclose the information at item 2 above does not pass muster. The view taken by this Commission in past cases has been that marks obtained by candidates in interviews should be disclosed to them. The public authorities Shri R. Qaiser Vs. OICL & GIPSA : Appeal Case No. A-8/1470 Page 3 of 4 should also disclose the marks given by each interviewer after blocking the name of that interviewer and substituting him / her by a number such as interviewer-1, interviewer-2, interviewer-3 and so on. Thus, a candidate is entitled to receive not only the aggregate marks given to him in an interview, but also the marks given by each interviewer albeit after withholding the name of the interviewer and substituting him by a number or an alphabet."
10. Therefore, in the present case too, the marks awarded to the appellant in ASCI exercise, interview and CR [as asked in Item No. (i)], can be disclosed after substituting the name of the Interviewer or the Selection Board or Panel Member by a number or an alphabet.
11. In Item No. (ii), the appellant asked for marks of ACRs of third parties, which in normal course, is not disclosable. In all such cases, disclosing the aggregate marks in respect of the employees by excluding the marks obtained under ACRs or ACRs grades may result in disclosure of the ACRs marks simply by subtracting from the aggregate the total of the rest of the marks under other heads. In this case, the very purpose of keeping ACRs and ACRs grades confidential from those to whom it did not pertain, would be defeated.
12. It is, therefore, directed that in respect of Item No. (ii), marks secured by other candidates only in ASCI exercise and interview can be disclosed to the appellant.
13. CPIO is therefore, directed to disclose the information to the appellant, within 2 weeks of receipt of the order, and in the manner as stated in Para Nos. 10 and 12 above.
14. The review petition is accordingly disposed of.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties Sd/-
(A. N. TIWARI) Information Commissioner Shri R. Qaiser Vs. OICL & GIPSA : Appeal Case No. A-8/1470 Page 4 of 4