Central Information Commission
Rajender Singh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 4 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DMRCP/A/2023/656925
Rajender Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
DMRC Ltd, Metro Bhawan,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2025
Date of Decision : 04.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 02.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 12.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 15.10.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 12
"Kindly provide Information under RTI Act 2005 for recruitment of Post SC/TO, year 2009 in reference of adv. No DMRC/OM/HR/IV/2009.
1. Please provide information regarding date of receipt the Ld. Tribunal order R.A 138/2016 in Ο.Α 1923/2013 DMRC.
2. Please provide information regarding the date when DMRC approach to Hon'ble High Court New Delhi to set aside impugned order R.A 138/2016 in O.A 1923/2013.
3. Please provide information and reason for first two applicant selected in SC community however their score is more than UR category cut off marks i.e 49.03.
4. Please provide information for Maximum marks for Paper-I, Maximum Marks for Paper-II and Maximum marks for interview.
5. Please provide copy of final panel list as per below details prepared for selection for the post of SC/TO.
S.n Reg Nam Applied Ex Mark Marks Marks of Total Selected As
o . no e Categor Servic s of of Intervie Mark UR/SC/ST/OB
y e Paper Paper w s C
Main -1 -II
6. Please provide copy of reference rules/Guidelines/SOP in reference said requirement conducted.
7. Please provide information regarding no of vacancies in each category for EX Serviceman.
8. Please provide copy of approval note to keep allow to join candidates even vacancies had been carried for next recruitment drive initiated in July-2010 for SC, ST, OBC & UR.
9. Please provide financial cost & budget approval copy when DMRC carried forward applicant vacancies from 285 to 345 i.e 60 Manpower cost which were also filled through current recruitment till 27.04.2012
10. Please provide risk analysis calculation information & impact on decision taken with wrong figure/data from management decision.
11. Please provide information of probability on implementation any decision which is supported with wrong data before MD."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.11.2023 stating as under:
"Response to Item No. 1: The certified copy of the order dated:
10.08.2017, passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in R.A. No. 138/2016, was addressed and dispatched vide letter, dated: 16.08.2017, by Section Officer Judicial II, for Principal Registrar, C.A.T., to counsels for both the parties.
Response to Item No. 2 The information regarding filing of Writ Petition No.: 11247/2017, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, is already available on the website of Hon'ble Court (www.delhihighcourt.nic.in).
Page 2 of 12Response to Item No. 3: The information sought is in the form of seeking explanation/clarification, which does not fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, can not be furnished.
Response to Item No. 4:- The maximum marks for Written Examination (Paper-1 and II) was 75 marks and interview was 25 marks. Response to Item No. 5 Requested information is not available in desired format and hence cannot be provided in terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Response to Item No. 6 The applicant may refer to the Advertisement No. DMRC/OM/HR/IV/2009 Response to Item No. 7 The reservation for Ex-servicemen is on horizontal basis.
Response to Item Nos. 8, 9, 10 & 11: The information sought is hypothetical in nature, which does not fall within the definition of "information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.12.2023, held as under.
"The first appeal, RTI application, and submissions made by the CPIO and deemed PIO have been examined wherein, it is revealed that the disclosable information, as available in the records, has already been provided to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, vide reply letter No. 2023/DMRC/RTI/2792 dated 02.11.20233. Notwithstanding the same, with respect to the information pertaining to Item No. 5 of the RTI application, the CPIO is directed to furnish a copy of the list of selected candidates which was filed via Affidavit, dated:
17.02.2018, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the W.P. (C) No. 11247/2017, to the appellant, free of cost, within 21 days of issuance of this order.
The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly."
A written submission dated 28.03.2025 (copy marked to the appellant) has been filed by Shri S V Kute, GM/ Legal-cum-CPIO, DMRC, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
7. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT DMRC WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE CIC A. Background:Page 3 of 12
DMRC had carried out recruitment selections for the year 2009 for the post of SC/TO. The cut-off marks for various categories were fixed keeping in view the number of vacancies for each category.
The Appellant failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks for the SC category, which was 43.03, and had scored only 42.69 marks. The appellant was at Sl. No. 3 in the shadow panel. Further, DMRC had taken a conscious decision not to operate the shadow panel across all the categories and no candidates were inducted from the shadow panel.
B. Summary of RTI points, reply given by CPIO, appeal, response of the First Appellate Authority and the Appellant's response to the reply are placed for kind perusal as below:
The appellant, Sh. Rajender Singh has filed an appeal/complaint with the CIC, against the decision order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the First Appeal No. DMRCP/A/E/23/00060, dated 12/11/2023. The reply of the CPIO, along with point-wise corresponding response of the applicant, which were grounds for appeal, as well as the reply of the FAA, have been discussed in preceding paras.
C. Further, the following facts are pertinent to mention, for consideration:
In the past, the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications, Grievances and has approached courts as well, on the same matter, i.e., Open Market Recruitment- 2009 and his candidature for the same. The O.A. filed by the Appellant in the matter was ultimately settled in favour of DMRC by the Apex Court. The summary of his RTI Applications, Public Grievances and Court Litigations is submitted below:
RTI Applications filed by Sh. Rajender Singh.
S.N. RTI No. & Date Appeal(if any) Appeal No. & Date
1. DMRCP/R/E/22/00456 NO NIL 22/10/2022
2. DMRCP/R/E/23/00208 07/05/2023 NO NIL
3. DMRCP/R/E/22/00482 15/10/2023 YES DMRCP/A/E/23/00060 12/11/2023
4. DMRCP/R/E/23/00497 29/10/2023 YES DMRCP/A/E/23/00065 30/11/2023
5. DMRCP/R/E/23/00510 12/11/2023 YES DMRCP/A/E/23/00072 17/12/2023 II. Grievances filed by Sh. Rajender Singh.Page 4 of 12
S.N. Grievance ID & Dated Grievance Grievance Reply Given forwarded by
1. PMOPG/E/2022/0283712 PMOPG Representation for The matter is Dated: 22/10/2022 compliance of under Order dated adjudication, at 08/04/2016, present.
10/08/2017 passed by Hon'ble CAT in O.A. No. 1923 of 2013 and to consider the candidature of the applicant in view of the Order dated 08.04.2016, preferably within 2 weeks.
2. DOURD/E/2022/21982 DOURD Representation for The order, Dated: 23/10/2022 compliance of dated:
order issued from 08/04/2016
Hon'ble CAT in passed by the
O.A. 1923/2013 Hon'ble Central
and Stay request Administrative
disposed on Tribunal in O.A.
14.11.2019 under 1923/2013 has
CM Appl. been challenged
45978/2017. before the
Request to Hon'ble Court of
consider Delhi, which is in
representation on the advance
priority. stage of
arguments and
the next date of
hearing is fixed
for 02/02/2023.
III. Litigations initiated by Sh. Rajender Singh and DMRC, in the matter.
S.N. Court Case No. Case titled Subject Status
1. CAT OA NO. Rajender Singh Appointment OA was 1923/2013 Vs DMRC allowed in favour of the applicant vide order dated 08/04/2016
2. CAT RA No. DMRC VS Appointment RA was allowed 138/2016 Rajender Singh in favour of the respondent Page 5 of 12 vide order.
dated 10/08/2017
3. DHC WP No. DMRC VS Appointment WP was 11247/2017 Rajender Singh allowed in favour of DMRC vide order dated 13/10/2023
4. CAT MA No. Rajender Singh Appointment MA for 3727/2022 Vs DMRC execution of order dated 08/04/2016 was dismissed in favour of DMRC vide order dated 01/12/2023
5. DHC RP No. Rajender Singh Appointment RP was 113/2024 Vs DMRC dismissed in favour of DMRC vide order dated 22/03/2024
6. SC SLP NO. Rajender Singh Appointment SLP was 11498/2024 Vs DMRC dismissed in favour of DMRC vide order date 13/05/2024 D. Final Submissions:
The First Appellate Authority had held good the replies for RTI Items 1-4 and 6-11 given by the CPIO.
Regarding the RTI Item No.5, the appellant had sought a copy of the final panel list as per a certain format given by him; however, as no data was available in the format, he was informed as such by the CPIO and the information was not provided. However, in the decision order of the FAA to RTI Item No. 5, it was brought out that the list of selected candidates was filed via Affidavit, dated; 17/02/2018, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11247/2017, in which the present Appellant was a Respondent, in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court's order, date 18/01/2018. The said record was received by the representative of the counsel for the Appellant, under acknowledgement 17.02.2018.Page 6 of 12
Nevertheless, it was directed by the FAA that a copy of the said record may once again be provided to the Appellant. Inadvertently the compliance of the same was pending and has now been complied with.
It is finally submitted that DMRC has provided all the information requested by the Appellant, as per available records, under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The RTI applications and Appeals are being filed by Sh. Rajender Singh, as enumerated under Para C.I. above, were all related to the subject of his candidature for SC/TO post in Open Market Recruitment-2009, which has been finally settled by the Apex Court in favour of DMRC, and the process of Open Market Recruitments-2009 is also long settled.
8. PRAYER:
In view of the above submissions and the fact that the available and relevant information as requested by the appellant, has already been provided to him as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, it is therefore, submitted that the Hon'ble Information Commissioner may be pleased to dismiss the instant Second Appeal."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri S V Kute, GM (Legal)-cum-CPIO along with Shri Varun Bagai, DGM (HR) and Ms. Sabina Kujur, DGM (HR) present in person.
The appellant while narrating the factual background of this case stated that DMRC has issued a notification dated 28.11.2009 inviting applications for filling up the post of Station Controller/Train Operator (SC/TO) of 450 candidates. After declaration of results a panel of 345 selected candidates of all categories was prepared by DMRC and a waiting list was also prepared by them which remains operative for 2 years. In the waiting list, the name of appellant was shown at serial No. 655 in the overall merit list, while in the SC category his name appears at Sl. No. 3. He contended that out of 6 candidates in SC category who were selected and issued appointment letter BUT did not join the service; therefore, as per his version, the said 6 posts remained vacant and Page 7 of 12 he is being the candidate in the waiting list at 3rd position is entitled to get the appointment letter. He further contended that amongst SC category selected candidates, two candidates secured marks more than the cut off marks set for the UR category, hence, they have to be counted against UR category. Thus, his claim to the SC post becomes undisputed for filling the vacancy against reserved category without operating the waitlist panel. Considering the issue of vacancies and 'correct' accounting of reserved posts and candidates, he was entitled to get the appointment against the subject notification from DMRC. However, he was deprived of his right in the absence of complete disclosure of facts by the respondents, which led him to filing instant RTI application and this Second Appeal. He alleged that such a mismanagement of the reservation quota limits and wrong accounting of candidates by the Respondent organization vitiates the implementation of reservation policy and operation of roster points even during promotion. He submitted that SC candidates who secured marks at par with UR category candidates have to be counted under UR category and entry in their Service Book and other service records have to be made accordingly as UR category and for the entire career they will be UR category because that is the purpose of reservation policy which is to uplift the SC category persons at a level that they do not need the crutches of reservation any longer. He further submits that such 'uplifted SC candidates' (who join as UR category) cannot be promoted against roster point meant for SC candidates joining as SC category. The two SC candidates who secured marks at par with selected UR category candidates are for all intents and purposes now uplifted ones. Therefore, the issues raised by him need to be addressed in larger public interest. As regards information sought, he stated that cut off marks of 20 candidates (category-wise) has not been provided to him till date and the breakup of maximum marks needed for Paper-I & II as sought at point No. 4 of RTI application was also not given to him by the respondent.
The respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been provided to the appellant in the first instance and again in compliance of FAA's order a list of candidates against point No. 5 of RTI application was provided to the appellant in compliance of FAA's order. He apprised the Commission that appellant is a habitual litigant Page 8 of 12 who filed multiple RTI applications, grievance on PG portal and numerous court case before the Hon'ble CAT, Hon'ble Delhi High Court raising the same issue. However, he has not been able to win his case, so far. He has even approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP which too was dismissed, and order has been passed in favour of DMRC. He added that as per protocol, the DMRC does not have the provisions of keeping the shadow panel in operation for indefinite period. The process of recruitment of 2009 has already been completed way back and all the selected joined the service, accordingly. Providing him any further information/document will not serve any purpose except that the appellant may litigate the matter once again.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties at length and perusal of the records, noted that the matter of recruitment pertains to the year 2009, which was completed and selected candidates have already joined and have completed almost half their service tenure. Nonetheless, the reply and as sequel to it further clarifications given by the Respondent through written submission and during hearing is appropriate. However, keeping appellant's submissions in view particularly with regard to reservation roster and certain SC candidates to be counted as UR category, limited relief for point No. 4 and 5 of RTI Application in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, is granted.
Against point No. 4 of RTI Application, considering the contentions of Appellant regarding non-receipt of break-up of Maximum marks needed for Paper- I and Paper- II, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent to provide a revised updated reply on the said point intimating the maximum marks fixed for Paper-I and Paper- II separately. This information should be provided to the appellant, free of cost, within four weeks of the date of receipt of receipt of this order.
As regards point No. 5 of RTI Application, taking note of the appellant's arguments that merit list of 20 reserved category candidates has not been given to him. Commission feels that no harm will occur to parties by disclosing the names of the selected candidates and the marks obtained by them as available in the records. The disclosure of the list of selected candidates in a Page 9 of 12 public recruitment process cannot be said to be purely personal information, which would not cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In any event, the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
In this regard, the Commission would like to invite attention of the Respondent towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.9648 OF 2021) dated 11.11.2024, wherein the Court has made the following observations:
"....27. In this case, we are concerned with a selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune. Essentially, this is a process by which applications were invited from all eligible candidates by issuing a public advertisement. In that sense, this public process must be transparent and above board. The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be "personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest". Furnishing such information would also not cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy.
28. The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Since the selection process for Junior Clerks at the District Court in Pune was essentially a public activity which commenced with public advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates, we do not think that the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates participating in such a process would amount to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Given that such selection processes must be transparent and above board, it would be in the public interest to disclose such information rather than withhold it and allow any doubts about the process (however unjustified such doubts may be) to linger.
xxx xxx xxx
51. Since we have found that the disclosure of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, typing test and interviewers did not constitute any exempted information or did not affect the confidentiality of the exam so Page 10 of 12 conducted, we must say that the approach of the District authorities in Wardha contributed to the promotion of transparency which should typically be promoted in matters of public recruitment. Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes. Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
52. Therefore, though the Wardha disclosure may not be binding precedents, we still think there was nothing wrong with the District Authorities at Wardha making such disclosures. By making such disclosures, the district authorities at Wardha cannot be said to have breached or acted in ignorance of the provisions in Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act or Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules) 2009 or instructions no.19 issued to the candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk."
In view of the above, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to provide a copy of list of the candidates selected for the subject recruitment rank wise and category wise along with the marks obtained by them under the recruitment notice, which is the subject in issue, free of cost to the appellant, within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 11 of 12 Copy To:
The FAA, DMRC Ltd, Metro Bhawan, 13 Fire Brigade Lane, New Delhi - 110001 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)