Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Smtshashi Yadav vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 March, 2014

                   Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
                             website­cic.gov.in

                  Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000405/MP
 
Appellant                                  :      Ms. Shashi Yadav, New 
Delhi
Public Authority               :     RBI, Mumbai

Date of Hearing                :     28 March 2014 
Date of Decision               :     28 March 2014
  
Facts:­ 

1. The   appellant,   Ms.   Shashi   Yadav,   has   submitted   the   RTI  application   dated   18   July   2012   before   the   Central   Public  Information   Officer   (CPIO),   Reserve   Bank   of   India,   Mumbai;  seeking information regarding  the recruitment  to the post of  Assistants in RBI. 

2. Vide   reply   dated   23   August   2012,   the   CPIO   replied   that  the   written   examination,   interview   marks   and   cut­off   marks  will be available on the bank website after declaration of the  final result. Not satisfied by the CPIO's reply, the appellant  preferred appeal dated 30 August 2012 to the First Appellate  Authority   (FAA).     Vide   order   dated   01   October   2012,  the  FAA  directed the CPIO that in case the information sought is not  available   on   the   Bank   website   it   may   be   furnished   to   the  appellant. He also directed the CPIO to furnish the subject­ wise as well as aggregate marks obtained by the appellant in  the written examination. 

3.       Even after the order of the FAA, the CPIO has denied  the information by stating that it is not available with them  in   a   compiled   form   and   compiling   would   disproportionately  divert   the   recourses   in   term   of   section   7(9)   of   the   Act.  Thereafter,   the   appellant   has   filed   another   RTI   application  dated   01   November   2012   in   context   of   same   subject   through   a  total of 4 points. The CPIO vide letter dated 29 November 2012  denied to provide the information in terms of section 7(9) &  8(1)(j)   of   the   RTI   Act,   2005.   Not   satisfied   by   the   CPIO's  reply,  the appellant preferred  appeal  dated 27 December 2012  to   the   First   Appellate   Authority   (FAA).     No   order   has   been  passed by the FAA with respect to the second RTI application. 

3.     Not satisfied by the response of the public authority,  the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing.  The  appellant, Ms. Shashi Yadav was not present at the hearing and  respondents, Ms. Jonaki Sain, CPIO/Deputy Legal Advisor and  Ms. Shakti Dubey made submissions from Mumbai.

5. The   CPIO   submitted   that   the   information   sought   w.r.t.  marks   (subject   wise)   obtained   by   all   the   candidates   for   the  recruitment  examination  conducted   for   the   post   of   Assistants  may   not   be   provided   as   the   same   is   not   maintained   in   the  format   as   desired   by   the   appellant   and   also  stands   as   third  party   information.   The   appellant,   however,   has   been  informed  that her marks (subject wise i.e., Test of reasoning, Test of  English,   General   Awareness,   Numerical   ability   and   Computer)  can be accessed by her on the public authority's website along  with the cut­off marks (aggregate) category­wise and the list  of roll numbers of the successful candidates (centre wise) for  the  recruitment  examination.   The   CPIO   further   submitted  that  information sought regarding the educational qualification of  all the candidates may not be provided as the same stands as  third   party   information.   Moreover,   all   the   candidates  appearing   for   the   recruitment   examination,   hold   basic  qualification required to appear for the said examination. 

Decision Notice

6. The   Commission   upholds   the   CPIO's   order   as   the  information w.r.t appellant has been provided and the rest of  the information pertains to third party candidates and may not  be disclosed. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. The  case is closed. 

 (Manjula Prasher)  Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(T.K.Mohapatra) Dy Secretary & Dy Registrar Ph: 011­26105027. Copy to:
Central Public Information Officer, Reserve Bank of India, HRD, RIT Division, Central Office, Amar Building, P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai­400001.
First Appellate Authority Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India, HRD, RIT Division, Central Office, Amar Building, P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai­400001.
Ms. Shashi Yadav, RZF/770/8A, Gali No.12, Raj Nagar­ II, Palam Colony, New Delhi­110077.