Central Information Commission
Mr.Amrendra Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Power on 4 July, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/000888
Appellant : Amrendra Kumar Singh
Respondent : Damodar Valley Corporation
Date of hearing : 4.7.2013
Date of decision : 4.7.2013
FACTS
Heard today dated 4.7.2013. Appellant present. DVC is represented by Shri A. K. Sharma, Sr. Manager and Shri A. P. Singh, Sr. Manager (Recruitment).
2. The appellant had appeared in the written examination for the post of Sr. Chemist, Grade-III on 25.7.2010. He was interviewed but not selected. He had filed six appeals (File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001888 and 05 ors.) before this Commission which were disposed of vide order dated 8.2.2013. In the present appeal, the appellant has alleged partial compliance of the Commission's order.
3. I have heard the parties. I am broadly satisfied that the order of the Commission has been complied with. Even so, I must observe that the appellant was awarded 43 marks (out of 120) in the written examination and 29 marks (out of 50) in the interview. Thus his total score is 72. On the other hand, one Vedabrata Porel was awarded 48.75 (out of 120) in the written examination and 20 marks (out of 50) in the interview. Thus his total score is 68.75. While Shri Vedabrata Porel was selected, surprisingly the appellant was not selected. The explanation given by the officers of DVC is that this happened due to the weightage system applicable to this examination.
4. It is pertinent to mention that Union Public Service Commission is the highest, model examining body in the country. It does not have any such weightage system. The marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and the interview are simply added up and the merit list is prepared. But this does not appear to have happened in the present case. Besides, it may also be mentioned that as per the Supreme Court judgment, maximum marks for interview cannot exceed 12% of the total marks for the examination. In this case, the marks reserved for interview are almost 30%. In other words, in my opinion, the appellant does not appear to have been treated fairly in this case but this Commission has no authority to take any remedial action.
5. Be that as it may, during the hearing, the appellant insists for copies of the application forms and other allied documents submitted by all the 70 candidates who were called for the interview. In the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no harm in providing copies of these documents to the appellant, free of cost.
6. This order may be complied with in 03 weeks.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO Damodar Valley Corporation DVC Towers, VIP road, Kolkata - 54
2. Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh c/o Shri Rohit Raj, Amar Kutir, Chai Toal, Musalhpur, Mahendru, Patna - 6