Central Information Commission
Rama Kumari vs Staff Selection Commission on 27 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SSCOM/A/2021/631106
Rama Kumari ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
RTI Cell, Kendriya Sadan,
34-A, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Civil Lines, Prayagraj,
Uttar Pradesh-211001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/06/2022
Date of Decision : 23/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 29/06/2021
First appeal filed on : 03/07/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 14/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 28.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"MY NAME IS RAMA KUMARI. MY REGISTRATION NUMBER IS 94000123803 AND MY ROLL NUMBER IS 3206100680 IN CHSL 2018. I AM OTHOPAEDIC HANDICAPPED(HAND) SO I WAS EXTEMPED FOR TYPING TEST. I WAS 1 SUMMITED MY DOCUMENT REGARDING IT IN MY CENTRE. MY NUMBER IS 162.9853 IN PAPER I & II. SO PLEASE APPRISE ME THE REGION WHY AM I NOT CALL FOR DOCUMENT VERIFICATION."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 29.06.2021 stating as follows:-
"Dear candidate as per record available you have not been considered for exemption from appearing in typing test in CHSLE 2018 as you have not provided requisite certificate in this regard to the commission."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.07.2021. FAA's order dated 14.07.2021 held as under:-
"Dear applicant as per our record, you have neither submitted the exemption certificate at the venue on the day of typing test nor you forwarded the same in our registered mail ID i.e. [email protected] created for this purpose. That's why you have not been exempted from appearing in typing test."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal praying that the relevant CCTV footage must be checked to verify the facts.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: B K Srivastava, Deputy Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
At the outset the Commission remarked that the Appellant has neither sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor any relief permissible under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant desired to narrate her alleged ordeal and stated that she had personally submitted the relevant certificate at the examination centre after much hardships as the staff posted at the centre were not allowing the candidates like her to go inside the centre, that rather they were being shooed away. She further stated that there is no reason to question the submission of her certificate 2 as it was her certificate which was being displayed to the other candidates for noting the prescribed format in which the certificate was required to be submitted by SSC. She narrated similar other instances to prove that she had submitted her certificate at the examination centre as was desired by the SSC and in her knowledge, there were barely 4-5 candidates who had submitted their respective certificates along with her but only her case has been singled out by SSC as a case of non-submission of the required certificate for seeking exemption from the typing test. In this context, she wanted the SSC to check the CCTV footage of the relevant date and time of the concerned examination centre to verify the facts.
The CPIO expressed his disbelief at the allegations of the Appellant, however, agreed to look into the matter by checking for the availability of CCTV footage.
Decision:
In pursuance of the hearing proceedings, the Commission takes an empathetic view in the matter as the allegations of the Appellant are rather baffling and casts serious aspersions on the functioning of SSC. The CPIO is directed to revisit the instant RTI Application and ascertain the availability of the relevant CCTV footage. A revised reply incorporating the available information shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3