Central Information Commission
Ms. Sudha Jain vs Dep’T. Of Personnel & Training (Dopt). on 20 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01206 dated 11.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Sudha Jain
Respondent - Dep't. of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
Facts:
By an application of 20.2.07 addressed to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Ms. Sudha Jain of Jaipur, Rajasthan asked for the following information:
"1. Why crucial dates for SSC Graduation Level Examination for Years 2005 & 2006 have been kept as 1.1.2006 and 1.8.2007 respectively? When examination is being conducted for the year 2005 & 2006, then why eligibility is being taken for 2006 & 2007?
According to information received from Shri V. K. Aggarwal, CPIO, SSC vide letter No. 1/3/2007/I.O., crucial date is fixed according to the date of examination. Since the main examination for the year 2005 & 2006 has been fixed for first and second half of the next year respectively, therefore crucial dates have been kept as 1.1.2006 & 1.8.2007 respectively. Is it proper under the relevant rules to fix eligibility on the basis of examination conducted and not on the basis of examination year? Please provide copy of relevant rule position.
2. If it is correct, then why for the year 2001 it has not been so done?. For the year 2001, Tentative Graduate Level exam was conducted on 24.3.2002 (Notification No. 3/4/2000- P&P-I dated 9-15 March, 2002 published in Employment News). The main examination for the year 2001 was conducted on 22, 27, 28 & 29 December, 2002. (Notification No. 2/4/2002-P&P-I dated 28th Sept. - 4th Oct., 2002 published in Employment News). When the examination was conducted in the year 2002 then why crucial date was kept at 1.8.2001?. As per rules the crucial date for the year 2001 must have been 1.8.2002. In this connection CPIO has furnished misleading information that main exam for 2001 was conducted in second half of the year, therefore, the crucial date was fixed as 1.8.2001.1
3. For examinations conducted by UPSC for Civil Services, the crucial date is always 1st August of the same year irrespective of the date of examination. Should SSC not follow the same procedure ?
4. Is it desirable that if the Commission due to administrative reasons does not conduct examination for the year 2006, then the candidates should suffer for the same? If yes, then why the candidates for the year 2001 were provided this benefit. Is it not a mistake? In a recent decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case RPSC vs. Vanshi Lal, the Court has held "If there is no vacancy every year, then age relaxation be provided". Will SSC's present policy fit the present circumstances & on the above decision of the Court?
5. If your Ministry considers that Commission and Department of Personnel & Training have failed to organize exams for the year 2006 in time, then don't you think that the candidates who were eligible as on 1.8.2006 should be given one more chance to appear.
6. Is crucial date fixed on the basis of Rules & Regulations for appointment of the concerned Departments, as is mentioned in point No. 17(iv) in the letter of CPIO?
7. Combined Graduate Level Exam is organized in two parts.
One is tentative exam and the other is main exam. For both exams the vacancy intimation dates have been given separately. For tentative exam the date has been given as 30.6.2006 and 28.9.2006 and for main exam the date has been given as 28.2.2007. When tentative exam is only to make one eligible for main exam, then what is the use of giving vacancy intimation for this exam? Is recruitment done on the basis of tentative exam as well ?
8. Point (vii) of the Commission's policy is misleading. Is it not necessary to have vacancy position before conducting main exam and main exam conducted only for those vacancies only.
9. Does your Ministry agree that SSC is not interested to conduct the exams on time. As per Schedule the exam for Section Officer (Audit) for the year 2007 the date should be 6.1.2008 and for SSC Graduate Level Tentative Exam is in first week of Feb., 2008. Please clarify when these exams are for the year 2007 then why these will be conducted in the year 2008? How UPSC is successful in conducting exams in time as per schedule issued for the year?
10. In regard to Section Officer (Audit) Exam 2006:
Crucial dates for the year 2001, 2003 & 2005 were fixed on the basis of date of examination. If the exam is conducted in 2 fist half of the year then it is 1st January and if in the second half of the year the it is 1st August, but for the year 2006 the crucial date has been fixed as 6.10.06 (last date of receipt of applications) CPIO of the Commission, in a contradictory statement, has intimated that the Recruitment Rules were modified. Simultaneously, he has submitted that Commission has no rules of its own for Recruitment but it follows the rules of the demanding Department.
Please clarify what short comings / administrative reasons were observed by the Commission, on the basis of which the crucial date was declared as last date of receipt of applications.
11) Was it to provide benefit to the aspirants for SS Section Officer (Audit) 2006 Exam who were eligible as on 1.8.2006 (which was based on the old rule position) ?
12. Please also clarify that if there is no basis for adopting revised rules, then whether those candidates, who could not sit in the exam due to revised rules, should not be provided a separate chance ?
This application was transferred by a letter of 28.2.07 by CPIO Ms. A. Radha Rani of DOPT to CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Staff Selection Commission under intimation to applicant Ms. Jain. However, on receiving no response, Ms. Jain moved an appeal on 26.3.07 before the same Ministry only to receive an order of 2.4.07 from Appellate Authority Shri C. A. Subramanian, Director, DOPT as follows:
"The matters relating to the examination and subsequent matters relating thereto are dealt with only by SSC. Hence this Department does not have any separate information to offer on the subject matter. You are, therefore, requested to contact Appellate Authority, SSC for further correspondence in the matter."
This has brought Ms. Jain in a second appeal before us with the following prayer :
"Please direct the CPIO to furnish the detailed information.
Please punish the CPIO, SSC u/s 20(1) of RTI Act."3
In response to our appeal notice of 26.12.08 Ms. Gayatri Sharma Dy Secretary SSC in a letter of 1.1.09 has submitted that in response to the application of 20.2.07, CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal in his letter of 21.4.08 has informed Ms. Sudha Jain as follows:
"Although the information sought by you in your earlier representation has already been provided to you by the Commission, but the relevant facts are once again clarified, as below;-
Para (i) and (ii): In the Combined Graduate Level (Main) Exam- 2001, the crucial date was kept at 1.8.2001 as the Main examination was scheduled to be held in the second half of the year 2001. However, due to administrative reasons, the Combined Graduate Level (Preliminary) Exam 2001 was held in March, 2002 and the Combined Graduate Level (Main) Exam-2001 was held in December 2002. The Commission in its letter dated 12.2.2007 had inadvertently (due to typographical error) indicated that the Combined Graduate Level (Main) Exam-2001 was held in second half of the year-2001. The error is sincerely regretted, as there was no malafide intention on the part of the Commission to mislead the applicant.
Para (iii): The parameter5s of UPSC are applicable on the examinations conducted by the UPSC. SSC follows its norms/ parameters for the examinations conducted by it.
Para (iv): The Commission have followed the extant Government guidelines in fixing the crucial date for its examination and there has been no irregularity/ anomaly in deciding the crucial date. Hence, depriving any category of candidates from appearing in its examination does not arise.
Para (v): The Commission's policy/ stand has already been explained in the preceding paragraphs and does not merit further elaboration. It is again reiterated that the Commission does not act in an arbitrary manner and there is no irregularity/ anomaly/ contradiction in the policies of the Commission.
Para (vi): Preliminary examination is a screening test for the candidates who apply for the Combined graduate Level Examination conducted by the Commission. No appointment is made on the basis of the results of the Preliminary examination.
Para (vii) and (viii): Not covered under the RTI Act.4
Para (ix): As per the tentative programme of the examinations, the slots for the written examinations for the SO (Audit) Examination 2007 were available only in January, 2008. The Commission did not conduct Combined Graduate Level Examination, 20007.
Para (x), (xi) and (xii): The reason for fixing the closing date as 6.10.2006 in the Section Officer (Audit) Exam- 2006 was as per the relevant clause in the Recruitment Rules (for fixing the Closing Date as the Crucial Date) of the concerned recruitment and as decided by the Commission. The decision was not taken to extend benefit to any category of candidates who would have become ineligible if the crucial date has been fixed as 1.8.2006. Copy of the RR containing the stipulation for keeping the Closing Date as the Crucial Date for the Section Officer (Audit) Exam-2006 is enclosed for ready reference."
It appears that the application of Ms. Sudha Jain of 20.2.07 was forwarded by the CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal to Under Secretary (PAP-1) SSC on the very date of receipt by the SSC i.e. 20.2.07 seeking comments immediately. In the meantime by an order of 3.4.08 this Commission has summoned CPIO Shri Aggarwal in a separate case in the hearing of appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00395 in response to which through his letter of 24.4.08 Shri V. K. Aggarwal pleaded excessive burden on the Staff Selection Commission in dealing with RTI applications of which the SSC had received till that date 2000. This representation has been dealt with in our disposal of appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00395 through an order of 25.4.08, which is as follows "He 1 admits that the failure has resulted from a misplaced assumption that a reply had already been sent to complainant Ms. Sudha Jain, which in an earlier complaint of 27.1.07 already stood replied. However, in compliance with our orders, Shri Aggarawal has submitted follows:
"As desired by the Hon'ble CIC, the requisite reply has been sent to Mrs. Sudha Jain (copy enclosed)."
Having consideration for the overload pleaded by CPIO, SSC and the fact that there appears to have been a bonafide error in confusing two separate RTI applications of complainant Ms. Sudha Jain as being one, we find in light of the fact that full information 1 The reference is to CPIO Shri VK Aggarwal 5 had readily been supplied to appellant in compliance of our orders, we find no justification for imposition of penalty. However, the admission that the Staff Selection Commission which comes under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, nodal Ministry in ensuring adherence to the RTI Act 2005 in the Central Government is suffering overload in this vital area is unacceptable."
The appeal was heard through videoconference. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio at Jaipur Ms. Sudha Jain Shri Ulhas Jain assisting Ms. Sudha Jain Respondent at CIC Studio Delhi Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. (A) / F.A.A., SSC Shri Ulhas Jain, assisting appellant Ms. Sudha Jain agreed that he had indeed received the letter of 21.4.08 from CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal on 24.4.08. However, he found the response to Point Nos. 7 & 8 unsatisfactory.
DECISION NOTICE Point nos. 7 and 8 read as follows:
7. Combined Graduate Level Exam is organized in two parts. One is tentative exam and the other is main exam. For both exams the vacancy intimation dates have been given separately. For tentative exam the date has been given as 30.6.2006 and 28.9.2006 and for main exam the date has been given as 28.2.2007. When tentative exam is only to make one eligible for main exam, then what is the use of giving vacancy intimation for this exam. Is recruitment done on the basis of tentative exam as well ? 2
8. Point (vii) of the Commission's policy is misleading. Is it not necessary to have vacancy position before conducting main exam and main exam conducted only for those vacancies only.
The reply from CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal is simply that "Para (vii) and (viii):
Not covered under the RTI Act." Both points are indeed in the nature of suggestions and observations. There is no record or material that has been 2 Underlined by us for ease of reference 6 sought. However, there is a specific question on established practice as st underlined by us in question no. 7 above. And because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of appellant, which are of direct concern to her public authority and because appellant's ground for making an appeal to us was not the order of SSC but that of DoPT which is not the public authority concerned, or indeed from apprehension of malafide on the part of the SSC, the Commission has decided to remand this appeal to Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Dy.
st Secy. (A) & 1 appellate authority who is directed to dispose of the appeal within ten working days from the date of receipt of this decision, under intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.
The remaining issue is one of delay. It is clear that the application of 20.2.07 forwarded to the SSC on 28.2.07 and further dealt with in that public authority on the very same day has been responded to only on 24.4.08 i.e. more than a year after the application was received. In disposing of the appeal Ms Shram will also enquire into the reasons for this delay, who was responsible and whether liability lies for violation of the time limit mandated u/s 7 (1), and if so, on whichi official taking into account the provisions of sub-secs. (4) and (5) of Sec 5 of the Act, and send a report to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar Jt Regfistrar CIC by or before 8.6.'08. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 20.5.2009 7 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 20.5.2009 8