Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sanjeev Kumar Bhakar vs Border Security Force on 7 April, 2022

                                  के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2020/679345

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Bhakar                                      ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, BSF, HQ, New Delhi                                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Through: Commandant Anil Verma,
Asstt. Commdt. S P Dhoundiyal and SI Sanjay
Kumar Singh

Date of Hearing                         :   06.04.2022
Date of Decision                        :   07.04.2022
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                :   07.05.2020
PIO replied on                          :   -
First Appeal filed on                   :   08.06.2020
First Appellate Order on                :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   27.07.2020

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.05.2020 seeking information on the following points:-

On 6 May 2020 result of BSF Head constable RO RM descriptive test is announced and by seeing the result i am shocked and depressed as my ( name - SANJEEV KUMAR BHAKAR, Roll - 119140400114 , RM ) was not in list. Sir i have given excellent exam out of 200 Marks i have attempted 198 marks paper. I was sure that i will clear the exam. Sir please check my paper/ result once. And let me know. I think there is some mistake in making the list. There would be some mistake from your side. Please check. And also do let me know the further process to rectify this discrepancy if any. Do let me know the cutoff marks and my score in BSF HC RM descriptive test.

I am sure there is some mistake from your side sir. please check the result once. I have attached my admit card as well.

Reason for filing this RTI i.e. What I want :-

My answer sheet and my score, Cutoff marks of descriptive test and new list of result if i have cleared the exam, Model answer scripts used to evaluate, Guides provided to evaluators, Time and place where the answer scripts were inspected Updated result if i have cleared the exam Re-evaluation of my test copy.

My Details:- Name- SANJEEV KUMAR BHAKAR Roll Number- 119140400114 Name of the Examination- BSF HC RM DESCRIPTIVE TEST Date of the examination- 02/02/2020 Community- OBC Exam Language- English Name of Exam Centre- WILLIAMS ACADEMY SR SEC SCHOOL Exam Centre details- WILLIAMS ACADEMY SR SEC SCHOOL, LAL SAGAR, MANDORE, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN PO: BSF TRG CENTRE PIN: 342026 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2020 which was also not adjudicated.

Aggrieved over non receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing held through video conference, while the Appellant has not attended the hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance nor has he communicated any reason for his absence. Respondent has furnished copies of reply sent by the PIO and the FAA's order whereby information sought by the Appellant had been denied invoking Section 24 of the Act.

Decision:

Upon examination of the documents submitted by the Respondent during the course of hearing, the Commission finds that reply sent by the Respondent is well within the provisions of the RTI Act since the instant case does not attract the proviso clause of the Section 24 of the RTI Act. Thus no cause of action subsists for further adjudication under the RTI Act. Moreover in the absence of the Appellant no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case.

Before parting with the case, the Commission advises the Respondent to submit their contentions and related documents before the Commission, prior to the hearing, for perusal of the same in advance. The Commission further Page 2 of 3 recommends to the Respondent to consider revisiting their policy about declaration of cut off marks and marks obtained by respective candidates in order to mitigate the chances of unsuccessful candidates seeking information through RTI applications.

In the light of the above discussion, the appeal at hand is disposed off as such.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3