Central Information Commission
Shri. Partha Pratim Bera vs Durgapur Steel Plant on 6 October, 2009
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.4221/IC(A)/2009 dated 24th July 2009)
Decision No.4598/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000195
Dated, the 6th October, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Partha Pratim Bera
Name of the Public Authority: Durgapur Steel Plant
i
Decision:
1. In our Decision notice No.4221/IC(A)/2009 dated 24th July 2009, the
following observations were made:
• "The appellant did not receive the requested information within the stipulated
period of 30 days. He therefore submitted his complaint to the West Bengal
Information Commission, which, in turn, forwarded the complaint to this
Commission for the reasons of its jurisdiction.
• This Commission issued notice of hearing on June 10, 2009 in response to
which the CPIO furnished the answer sheet of the appellant and score of
marks of all the candidates in the written test as well as in the interview, vide
his letter dated July 14, 2009. The appellant has received the information
but he has not offered his comments so far.
• In the course of hearing, the reasons for inordinate delay in supply of
information, including the score of marks of all the candidates under different
parameters were examined. It was observed that among all the candidates,
the appellant has scored the highest marks, i.e. 59/100 in the written test and
the lowest marks i.e., 8/25 in the interview. While he has been marked
passed in the written test, he is marked failed in interview. Hence, excluded
from the merit list.
i
"If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi
1
• The appellant's total score is 67 (59+8) and in the overall merit list he
occupies third position. Yet, he is not declared as a successful candidate
because he got the lowest marks, 8, in the interview. Interestingly, all the
five experts have independently given 8/25 to make it to the average of 8/25.
He is the only candidate to score both a highest of 59/100 and the lowest of
8/25.
• Decision: The disclosure of marks awarded to the appellant give rise to the
suspicion that there could be some unfair practice in the award of interview
marks to the appellant because of which a highest scorer of marks of 59/100
in the written test, scored the lowest marks, i.e. 8/25 in the interview; and
most surprisingly all the five Members of the Selection Committee awarded
the same marks, 8/25, leading to the average score of 8/25 only, to the
appellant.
• It is suspected that because of inconsistency and wide disparity in the award
of marks, the respondent was hesitant in disclosing the information asked for
by the appellant. The appellant was therefore constrained to submit his complaint before the Commission. The information asked for on 16.3.2009 was released on 14.7.2009, after nearly four months when the proceedings were initiated by the Commission. Clearly, the delay in providing the information is due to malafied reasons.
• In numerous cases, this Commission has ordered that the information relating to recruitment and selection process should be put in public domain so as to demonstrate fairness and objectivity in the selection process. Yet, the respondent has not taken the cognizance of the Commission's earlier orders and created unnecessarily a compelling situation to file a complaint before the Commission.
• A major concern of RTI has been to effect changes in the functioning of public authorities, particularly in respect of promotion of efficiency and accountability, including the containment of all forms of corrupt practices. In the instant case, the respondent does not seem to have accorded priority to establish a transparent system for recruitment of professionally qualified persons.
• In view of the foregoing, the CPIO, Shri. B.R. Kanungo, is held responsible for violation of Section 7(1) of the Act, as he has failed to provide the information for malafied reasons within the mandatory period of 30 days. He is directed to show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 25th August 2009 at 11.30 a.m., failing which penalty would be imposed. In case the delay in providing the information is caused due to lackadaisical attitude of any other officials, the 2 custodian of information, he should also be informed and asked to be present in the hearing.
• In view of what has been observed in the matter of award of marks in the written and interview test, and the criteria of final selection of candidates which is at variance with the convention of selection of candidates on the basis of total marks, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses including mental harassment in the process of accessing information to unearth the truth about the selection process. The appellant should therefore be compensated. The respondent's Managing Director, or his nominee, should explain as to why a suitable amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) should not be awarded to the appellant, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act. The Managing Director or his nominee, should also appear for a personal hearing on the date and time indicated above. The appellant may also be present.
• The respondent's Managing Director should enquire into the matter of recruitment process in question, and ascertain whether (i) the selection criterion of each candidate obtaining pass marks, separately in the written test and interview is valid and approved by the competent authority; and (ii) the members of the Selection Committee (5) connived in any manner to award the fail marks, incidentally 8/25 by each member. A report in this regard should be submitted at the earliest, preferably by August 25, 2009".
2. In pursuance of the above show cause notice, both the parties were heard on August 25, 2009.
3. As per the directions given to the respondent's Managing Director under para 13 of the decision notice, an enquiry report in the matter of recruitment process of M.S.P. (Radiology) had been submitted before the Commission. The Enquiry Committee, constituted by the MD, has concluded as under:
"We, therefore, conclude that: (i) That the selection criterion of each candidate obtaining pass marks separately in the written test and interview is valid and approved by the competent authority, and (ii) The members of the Selection Committee (5) did not connive in any manner to award the same fail marks, incidentally 8/25 by each member."
4. As regards the delay of about four months in responding to the RTI application is concerned, the PIO, Shri. B.R. Kanungo has stated that "all RTI Act 2005 related correspondences are received by Shri. Dilip Bannerjee, Sr. Office Secretary, Receipt & Despatch and then handled by Shri. Ashok Mazumdar, APIO and the undersigned as PIO." He has, therefore, pleaded that he alone is not responsible for the delay in providing information to the appellant. The PIO, Shri. B.R. Kanungo has, however, not indicated as to which of the above officials and for what duration, were responsible for keeping the RTI application with 3 themselves, which caused undue delay in providing the information. This question was specifically asked during the hearing and Shri. B.R. Kanungo was allowed enough time to indicate as to which official of his RTI Unit was responsible for delay in providing the information. Shri. B.R. Kanungo has however failed to do so. He has stated that he was in no way associated with the recruitment and selection process of the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has had any malafied intention in obstructing the flow of information.
5. Having examined the arguments and written submissions of the PIO, Shri.B.R. Kanungo we hold that he is indeed responsible for inordinate delay in providing the information due to which the appellant was constrained to approach West Bengal Information Commission, and later to this Commission. And the information was furnished only after the complaint proceedings were initiated by this Commission. He is, therefore, held responsible for violation of Section 7(1) of the Act without any reasonable cause. A maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) u/s 20(1) of the Act is, therefore, imposed on him.
6. The respondent's Managing Director is directed to deduct Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five Thousand only) from the salary of the PIO, Shri B.R. Kanungo, in five equal installments of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, with effect from November 2009, and deposit the same by way of Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, CAT, payable at New Delhi, to the PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi, under intimation to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.
7. In so far as the award of compensation u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act is concerned, the respondent has neither accepted that there was any unfair practice in the conduct of the selection process nor there is any loss of any kind to the appellant, who participated in the selection process and, subsequently sought for discloser of details of the outcome of the selection process. We, however, do not agree with such averments as made by the respondents for the following reasons: (i) Even if it is accepted that the selection process was fair in which the appellant scored the highest marks in the written test and the lowest in the interview marks, there should not be any hesitation in declaring the results on time and intimating the outcome of the selection process to the candidates; (ii) Even when the RTI application was put up for disclosure of the relevant details such as evaluated answer sheet and score of marks, the respondents did not furnish the information till the complaint proceedings were initiated by this Commission; and (iii) In the process of seeking details of his own performance with a view to seeking relief from the competent authorities, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses and harassment to know the truth about his own selection. If the respondents had justly conducted the selection process, why was there any hesitancy and shyness in revealing the truth about the complainant's performance in the personal interview, which resulted in his ultimate non-selection for the post he had applied for.
48. In our considered view, the appellant, in his attempt to exercise his right to work and seek employment, has surely suffered from mental harassment, loss of opportunity to work and earn for livelihood support and wastage of time and resources to pursue the RTI applications. There is, therefore, no reason why an unemployed youth, as appellant, who has qualified in the technical examinations with higher marks, should not be paid a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act for all kinds of detriment suffered by him. The respondent's MD is, therefore, directed to pay the appellant, Shri Partha Pratim Bera compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) through a bank draft on or before 30th November 2009, failing which penal interest @10% would be applicable.
9. A compliance report should also be submitted to the Commission in due course failing which appropriate action would be initiated against the respondent.
10. The petition is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Partha Pratim Bera, At- Alamchak, P.O. Bhadrakali, Dist. Midnapur (W) - 721 437.
2. Shri. B.R. Kanungo, CPIO, Durgapur Steel Plant, Ispat Bhavan, Durgapur
- 713 203 (W.B.)
3. The Appellate Authority, Durgapur Steel Plant, Ispat Bhavan, Durgapur -
713 203 (W.B.)
4. The Managing Director, Durgapur Steel Plant, Ispat Bhavan, Durgapur -
713 203. (W.B.).
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 5