Central Information Commission
Mr. Neeraja Gupta vs Institute Of Genomics & Integrative ... on 15 December, 2008
Central Information Commission
CIC/AT/A/2008/00641/AD
Dated December 15, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Neeraja Gupta,
R/o. H.No. 2087 -A,
Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti,
New Delhi - 110034.
Name of Public Authority : The CPIO - RTI,
Institute of Genomics &
Integrative Biology,
Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research,
Delhi University, Campus,
New Delhi - 110007.
Background
1. The RTI request was filed on 19.11.07. The Appellant requested for following information regarding selection process for the post of Scientist 'C' , conducted on 22nd and 23rd September, 07
a) The minimum marks of written technical test & interviews?
b) The minimum qualifying marks in written technical tests & interviews?
c) How much weightage is given to written technical test & interviews while computing ranking of a successful candidate?
d) What are the norms /scale points according to which suitability of a candidate is calculated? Or say how a candidate is found suitable for a post by the council?
e) Details of recruitment made against post of scientist grade 'B' & 'C' during the last five years i.e year, number of candidates , marks obtained by them in written technical test & interviews & name of the candidate finally selected.
f) Whether maximum marks of the written test & interviews fixed for selection are in accordance with orders/instructions issued by Govt. of India/ UPSC/AICTE? If not, reason therefore.? It appears that interview marks are much higher to that of written test marks. The reason for the same.
g) Whether Sh. Deepak Raj & Sh. Bharat Singh, both candidates, had disqualified for the written technical test for the post of 'B' (biological database & computer system management) if so, how they could be found suitable for the post of scientist grade 'C' what were the marks of Sh. Deepak Raj & Sh. Bhagat Singh in written technical tests for the post of scientist grade 'B' ?
h) After qualifying written technical test according to job profile, why all candidates were found unsuitable?
The CPIO replied on 10.12.07 providing relevant information to the Appellant. The first appeal was filed on 2.1.08 stating that the PIO has provided incomplete information. The Fist Appellate Authority replied on 30.1.08. Not completely satisfied with the reply of the First Appellate Authority the Appellant approached the Commission. The second appeal was filed on 28.2.08. The Appellant reiterated her requested for the information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for December 15, 2008.
3. Mr. Pankaj Bansal, CPIO; Dr. Santosh Pasha, First Appellate Authority;
Mr. Inderjit Kumar SO(ADM) and Mr. Manish (Adm) & others represented the Public Authority. (The Public Authority came late for the hearing , immediately after the Appellant left, since they were caught in a traffic jam).
4. The Appellant Ms. Neeraja Gupta was present at the hearing. Decision
5. The Appellant stated that she was satisfied with the reply given against point no. 1. After reviewing the information provided against all the points in the RTI application, the Commission upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority with regard to points no. 9, 11 and & 12 since the Appellant is only seeking the opinions of the Public Authority and not any information as defined in the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant also agreed with this decision. The Commission identified the missing information being sought by the Appellant.
6. The Respondents (who came late to the hearing) stated that the technical tests are given only to screen the qualifying candidates and this is done by identifying those who have received at least 30 or more marks out of 50 in such tests. They stated that the in the final selection of candidates, the marks obtained in the technical tests are not counted at all since the final candidate selected from those screened is one who is familiar with the special softwares being used by the Institute. There is, therefore, no weightage given to the technical tests in the final selection, once the candidates are screened on the basis of technical tests and selected for interview. They also stated that the selection of candidates is governed by CSRAP Rules 2001 and by no other Rules and Norms while agreeing that the Rules do not provide any guidelines or norms to be followed for selection of the final candidate, such as parameters against which marks of 100 can be distributed during interviews. In other words, the 100 marks given for interviews are not broken down against different parameters. The Respondents further submitted that in this case, the Appellant was one of the 3 candidates who were screened for interviews on the basis of the technical tests.
7. Based on the submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO of the Institute to provide the following information to the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of this Order with a copy to the Commission.
i. Recruitment made against post of scientist grade 'B' & 'C' during the last five years along with year, number of candidates , marks obtained by them in written technical test & in interviews & names of the candidates finally selected (point 5). ii. Marks obtained by Sh. Deepak Raj & Sh. Bharat Singh for the post of scientist 'B' ( biological database & computer system management). How they could be found suitable for the post of scientist grade 'C' what were the marks of Sh. Deepak Raj & Sh. Bhagat Singh in written technical tests for the post of scientist grade 'B' (point 10) iii. What are the norms /scale points according to which suitability of a candidate is calculated? Or say how a candidate is found suitable for a post by the council?
8. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mr. Neeraja Gupta, R/o. H.No. 2087 -A, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, New Delhi - 110034
2. The CPIO - RTI, Institute of genomics & intergrative Biology, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Delhi University Campus, New Delhi - 110007
3. The Appellate Authority - RTI Institute of genomics & intergrative Biology, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Delhi University Campus, New Delhi - 110007.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC