Central Information Commission
Harikesh Bahadur Singh vs Banaras Hindu University on 8 July, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
कें द्रीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुननरका, नई ददल्ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/BANHU/A/2019/118092
In the matter of:
Harikesh Bahadur Singh
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO / Assistant Registrar,
Banaras Hindu University (BHU),
Recruitment and Assessment Cell,
Varanasi - 221005
&
2. Joint Registrar and Nodal Officer,
Banaras Hindu University (BHU), RTI Section
Varanasi - 221005
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 05/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 05/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 14/12/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 17/01/2019 Second Appeal dated : 10/04/2019 Date of Hearing : 07/07/2020 Date of Decision : 07/07/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Biswajeet Ghosh, Asst Registrar (RAC) BHU, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. List of candidates who appeared in the written test for the post of Assistant Teacher (TGT) in Social Studies (post code: 20150) advertised vide advertisement No. 02/2017-2018 dated 25.05.2017 with the marks 1 obtained by each candidate in the written test in the order of marks obtained.
2. Certified copy of OMR sheets of the top five candidates securing maximum marks in the written test for the sais post of Assistant Teacher (TGT) in Social Studies.
3. Provide the minutes of selection committee for the said post of Assistant Teacher (TGT) in Social Studies.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the requested information claiming exemption section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal submitted that the information disclosure would have substantiated foul play in the above selection where the daughter of an important functionary (Shri S.P Dhyani, Assistant Registrar) of the office handling the selections, namely the Recruitment and Assessment Cell of Banaras Hindu University was selected.
He further alleged that the RTI application was forwarded to the same person i.e the Assistant Registrar, Recruitment and Assessment Cell for disposal as CPIO. The Assistant Registrar should have recused himself from the present case, but instead, he has dealt with the application himself and as expected, he denied providing the information on flimsy grounds. He further submitted that instead of providing him the desired information, the CPIO had disposed off the RTI Application saying that the merit list and minutes of selection committee were "confidential" and covered under Section 8((1)(d). Regarding the copy of OMR sheet, he has said that "the carbon copy of OMR sheet has been provided to the candidates". Thus he denied providing any information, deliberately and mischievously, in order to cover up the foul play done by him for getting his daughter selected. He further submitted that aggrieved with the CPIO's reply he filed a first appeal. The Ex-First Appellate Authority, Shri Nand Lal, instead of directing the CPIO to provide the requested information, has blatantly connived with the CPIO in his attempt to evade providing the information and has been prompt to decide the first appeal saying that "The CPIO has rightly disposed off your online RTI application No. BANHU/R/2018150624 under the provision of the RTI Act-2005. Regarding pt.1, he has said that "the desired information can be 2 provided after completion of validity period of two years." This is a blatant lie and the Ordinance of Banaras Hindu University clearly shows that the validity of selection Panel is for a period of One year only. Further regarding the copy of OMR sheet, the Ex-FAA has said that "the OMR sheet has been destroyed after completion of preservation period of record as per order of competent authority. lt may be noted that while on one hand he says that validity of panel is two years, on the other hand he says that OMR sheet has been destroyed. lt may also be noted that the CPIO in his reply has not said that OMR sheet has been destroyed. This shows that the OMR sheet has been destroyed only after his first Appeal, in order to cover up their misdoings and to escape from providing information.
In respect of Point 1, the CPIO relied on the order dated 24.04.2019 of the Commission in case no. CIC/BANHU/A/2017/183979/00504, wherein it was held as under:
"Based on the averments of both the parties, the Commission finds the submission of the CPIO proper. Moreover, partial information has already been provided and the remaining information like marks scored by the candidates are personal information of third parties. Hence, this would stand exempted even after 19.08.2019."
In respect of point no. 3 he submitted that the minutes was not given as panel validity is for 2 years. Further in respect of point no.2 he submitted that the OMR sheets were destroyed because the preservation period is 6 months only. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO replied online on 05.12.2018 The information sought in points no. 1 & 3 were denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. 2 it was mentioned that carbon copy of OMR sheets of the candidates has been provided in the examination hall to the candidates after the examination.
The FAA disposed of the first appeal online on 17.01.2019 and held as follows:
"The CPIO has rightly disposed off your online RTI application under the provisions of the RTI Act.
In this connection it is to inform you that regarding point no. 1 of your appeal that the desired information can be provided after the completion of validity period of two years.
Further regarding point no. 2 it is to inform you that the OMR sheet has been destroyed after completion of preservation period of record as per order of competent authority."3
On a close scrutiny of the RTI application, it was noted by the Commission that points no. 1& 2 are related to third parties and hence exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be given.
In respect of point no. 3, the Commission finds the reply justified. Decision:
The appellant was given an opportunity to plead his case, but as informed by the NIC official in Azamgarh, the appellant left from the VC studio after waiting for some time. Attempts were made to contact him on the phone but he did not respond. Therefore, the Commission is constrained to accept the CPIO's submission and uphold the reply on point no. 3 as being justified.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / ददनांक / Date 4