Central Information Commission
Ram Niwas vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 2 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000913
Dated 26.05.2017
Appellant : Shri Ram Niwas,
Village Bhaishat,
Post Dadri (Shivpur)
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh-273412.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General,
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force,
CGO Complex, Block-2, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110 003.
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 02.06.2015
CPIO's reply : 07.07.2015
First appeal : 03.09.2015
FAA's order : 24.09.2015
Second Appeal : 27.04.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP), New Delhi seeking information on three points pertaining to one Shri Rahul in connection with the interview for recruitment for the post of Head Constable in ITBP including (i) list of selected candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community and (ii) the details of provisions for reservation in the aforesaid recruitment.
Page 1
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought has been incorrectly denied by the CPIO under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information as sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Ram Niwas attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought a copy of the complete merit list of selected Scheduled Caste (SC) category candidates in connection with the recruitment for the post of Head Constable ITBP. However, the said information was denied by the CPIO on the grounds that the ITBP has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that his first appeal was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 24.09.2015, wherein, information pertaining to the marks obtained by Shri Rahul was provided to him, instead of providing a copy of the complete merit list of selected SC category candidates. Hence, incomplete information has been provided to him by the respondent.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the appellant and perusing the records, observes that complete information has not been provided to the appellant. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a copy of the merit list of selected SC category candidates to the appellant as the information sought pertains to the recruitment process and disclosure of such information would not only enhance transparency but will also increase the credibility of CISF. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 2
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 3