Central Information Commission
Mr.Dharmraj vs Staff Selection Commission on 7 December, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000809
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 7 December 2012
Date of decision : 7 December 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Dharamraj,
Village Kotamb, Post Khujidih,
Tehsil Mashlishahar,
Distt - Jaunpur - 222 201.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Staff Selection Commission,
(EDP), CGO Complex, Block No. 12,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
Chairman, Staff Selection Commission,
(EDP), CGO Complex, Block No. 12,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Randheep Thakur, U.S. & CPIO, was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Jaunpur studio the NIC while the Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. The Appellant, a visually challenged person, had requested the CPIO to inform him why he was not selected in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2010 even though he had higher marks (305) than the last selected candidate (279) in the VH category for the post of Tax Assistant. His RTI application had been filed in the Allahabad office of the SSC. On not receiving any response from the CPIO in time, he had complained to the CIC. CIC/SM/A/2012/000809 The CIC had directed the Appellate Authority in its order dated 22 September 2011 to look into the matter and get the explanation of the CPIO for not providing any information. Consequently, the Appellate Authority had passed an order directing the CPIO in charge of the EDP Branch to directly write to the Appellant. It is not clear if any such reply was sent.
4. The Appellant, in this case, is a visually challenged person. He had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in this category. It is very natural that he should feel aggrieved on being left out. The Respondent pointed out that the reason for not selecting him seemed to be his failure to qualify in the data entry skills test a mandatory requirement. He further explained that although there was a relaxation available for visually challenged persons from this test, the Appellant had not produced any such claim in the Allahabad office and, therefore, no such relaxation could be given to him. The Appellant, however, submitted that, being visually challenged, he had not noticed the fine print and submitted his claim papers in the Allahabad office of the SSC two days later.
5. Be that as it may, this is both a humanitarian case as well as a case in which the desired information should have been given without any delay. We direct the CPIO now to write to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order and to provide him the desired information in available details. We also direct him to place the total facts of this case before the competent authority in the SSC so that he can take a view if the Appellant, on the basis of his higher marks and his entitlement to relaxation from the data entry skills test, should be reconsidered and declared successful.
6. We also direct the concerned CPIO to show cause why he should not be CIC/SM/A/2012/000809 penalised in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act for not responding to the Appellant in time. We direct him to appear before us on 21 January 2013 at 10.45 a.m. and offer his explanation.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000809