Central Information Commission
D Divya vs Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NYUKS/C/2022/636765
D DIVYA ....... शकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan
Ground Floor, 4 Jeevan Deep
Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
Date of Hearing : 13/09/2023
Date of Decision : 13/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 17/03/2022
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2019 seeking the following information:1
"Recently NYKS Conducted Exam for recruitment of DYC, Assistant, Accounts Clerk, and MTS. Results were announced but Marks of each candidate were not released. Also, the cut off for each section and overall cut-off was not released. Usually, Government exams after result will publish mark list of each candidate along with cut off. Please release the cut-off marks and marks obtained by each candidate on the website so that all candidates will get to know their marks, cut-off and this will ensure transparency in examination.
Also, I need the following information, Since NYKS focuses on developing sports among rural youth and focusing on other rural welfare activities, why there is no regional wise recruitment. I have not seen any candidates from Tamil Nadu and very few from southern states. Since NYKS is a rural development and sports organizations, regional language is essential. Will NYKS consider regional wise vacancy release and recruitment.
I am requesting this on behalf of many candidates who have applied for the post and having much interest in working for rural people with NYKS. Please release the mark list and ensure transparency. Also, please explain whether a reputed organization, NYKS has any regional wise vacancy."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17.03.2022 stating as under:
"The selection of candidates was made based on online examination and personal interview. The final selection was made based on the merit of the candidates in their respective categories.
However, marks details of all candidates in online exam had been uploaded on MYKS website for the post of DYC/AD (Batch-1 & 2), ACT & MTS (Batch-1) on 05.09.2019 and for the post of ACT & MTS (Batch-2) on 14.07.2020."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 'NIL'. FAA's Order, if any, is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Complainant: Represented by her husband PM Suresh present through video- conference.
Respondent: Suman Mudgal, Dy. Director & CPIO present in person.
The Rep. of Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the inordinate delay caused by the CPIO in furnishing the reply, which is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act. He further emphasised on the alleged inaction of the Respondent Authority in not selecting him despite the fact he fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In this regard, the Rep. of Complainant prayed the Commission that the CPIO should be penalized.
In response to the above, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her written submissions dated 12.09.2023, wherein she inter alia stated as under -
"....This refers to your above RTI application (dtd. 31.07.2019) & 1st appeal (dtd.03.09.2019) whereby information was sought regarding release the marks details of all candidates who had appeared for post of DYC, ACT & MTS under recruitment in NYKS with their respective category-wise cut off as well as requested for region-wise vacancy specially for Tamilnadu state. However, through your application, it was not clear as to information was sought regarding which Recruitment Examination & post since the recruitment in NYKS was carried out in two-batches for the post of DYC, ACT and MTS in the month of January 2019 and April' 2019, prior to your RTI application dt. 31.07.2019. Simultaneously, recruitment process of 3rd Batch was also being carried out in the month of July to September, 2019.
However, NYKS vide letter No. 3425 dtd. 17.03.2022 provided the reply to your above RTI application & 1st appeal and the delay caused was also regretted therewith. Being dis-satisfied with the above NYKS reply, 2nd complaint appeal has been filed by you before CIC which is scheduled for hearing on 13.09.2023. However, no copy of your 2nd appeal was received earlier by this office other than this CIC Notice.
Accordingly, on receipt of the said Notice of CIC, along with your complaint appeal, the following submission on part of NYKS is being given as follows:
"NYKS has full belief & respect towards the judiciary system of the country, Bureaucracy & Rights of the citizens of the nation. NYKS ensures providing information to any RTI application in a time- bound manner under the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. With reference to your complaint, you have objected to the 3 delayed reply undisclosed marks details of all candidates with cut off thereof & asked for re-evaluation of all candidate's answers for the post your husband applied for. In this regard, it is to inform that the online Computer Based Recruitment Examination in NYKS was conducted through IBPS (Institute of Banking Personnel Selection) and Skill Test was conducted through TCS (Tata Consultancy Service). Since the examination was conducted in online mode, the copy of assessment sheet is unavailable with NYKS. However, category-wise cut offs and the Marks secured by candidates in online computer based Examination under Batch - I & II were uploaded on NYKS website on 05.09.2019 and on 14.07.2020 which had also been communicated to you vide this office reply letter dtd. 17.03.2022 on your application & appeal. Due to conduct of back-to-back recruitment examinations in three Batches in the year 2019 in the m/o January, April & September, NYKS received bulk RTI applications & appeals, maximum of which were related to the recruitment. Between January, 2019 to March, 2020, 1622 RTI applications & 347 1st Appeals were received in NYKS, out of which 1457 RTI applications & Appeals were addressed & replied by NYKS till March' 2020.
However, with the onset of COVID- 19 pandemic and lockdown situation in the country, inadvertent delay was caused in disposing of certain RTI applications. The unintentional delay caused while disposing of your 1st appeal vide letter dated 17.03.2022 was also regretted therewith."
Besides, all information related to the recruitment process i.e merit list, selected candidates list, waiting list, candidates posting/joining station list etc. was also uploaded on NYKS' website from time-to-time and there was no concealment regarding examination process on part of NYKS. Thus, your remarks that 'such deserving candidates were lost due to the irresponsible attitude of the deptt.' stands invalid.
Further, with regard to your suggestion for advertising region wise vacancy, it is apprised that all recruitment examinations in NYKS are carried out in view of approved Recruitment Rules of NYKS. As per existing RRS, there is no such scope for advertising region wise vacancies."
Decision:
The Commission after considering all the facts of the instant case in hand and upon hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during the hearing, as the same was found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.4
Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any action against the CPIO for the delayed reply in the absence of malafide intent from their side. In this regard, a reference may be had towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In addition to the above, the issue flagged by the Rep. of Complainant regarding his non-selection in the averred exams is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
With the aforesaid findings, no further action is warranted in the instant matter. Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of her latest written submissions free of charge with the Complainant, immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, the Complainant is advised to pursue her grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6