Central Information Commission
Nidhiya Partheeban vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 21 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2023/639086
Nidhiya Partheeban .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Boiler
Auxiliaries Plant, Indira Gandhi Industrial
Complex, Ranipet - 632406 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.11.2024
Date of Decision : 21.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 24.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 29.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 15.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"(a) Criteria for selection of Apprentice in BHEL RANIPET as per the Apprenticeship policy/Act Issued by Ministry of Education, Government of India.
(b) Copies of List of candidates who appeared for the Interview for the year 2023.
(d) Exact date of beginning of apprenticeship training and as per the policy as directed by ministry of education under NATS (National Apprenticeship Training Scheme)
(e) Any Date for the declaration of Result from the Date of interview issued by BHEL RANIPET under Apprenticeship policy.
(f) Copies of List of candidates selected for the above Interview with merit list/mark list.
(g) Copies of List of officers who took part in the recruitment process.
(h) Copy of any policy having given permission to hold the decision to declare the result by any recognized Labour Union."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.05.2023 stating as under:
"Query (a): Criteria for selection of Apprentice in BHEL RANIPET as per the Apprenticeship Policy/Act Issued by Ministry of Education, Government of India.
Reply: (1) Circular (2) As per Apprenticeship Act-1961 Query (b): Copies of List of candidate who appeared for the Interview for the year 2023.
Reply: Copy enclosed as Annexure - I Query (d): Exact date of beginning of apprenticeship training and as per the policy as directed by ministry of education under NATS (National Apprenticeship Training Scheme) Reply: One year from the date of contract.
Query (e): Any Date for the declaration of Result from the Date of interview issued by BHEL RANIPET under Apprenticeship policy. Reply: Requested information is not available in any material form. Query (f): Copies of List of candidate selected for the above Interview with merit list /mark list.Page 2 of 6
Reply: List is enclosed as Annexure -II. Marks scored by the candidate are held in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of the score is exempted under S 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Query (g): Copies of List of officers who took part in the recruitment process. Reply: The details requested by the applicant are held in fiduciary capacity and hence, disclosure of the same is exempted under Sec 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Query (h): Copy of any policy having given permission to hold the decision to declare the result by any recognized labour Union. Reply: Requested information is not available in any material form."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 29.06.2023, held as under.
"Since reply has already been issued by CPIO on 23.05.2023. The appeal dated 20/05/2023 does not merit any consideration as no other ground is mentioned in 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 through video conference. Respondent: Shri Vijendra, CPIO appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive as desired information was not provided on point Nos.
(a), (e) and (f) of the RTI application. He stated that copy of circular mentioned in the reply against point No. (a) of the RTI application was not provided till the date of hearing. As regards point No. (e), date for the declaration of result from the date of interview were not provided. Besides, on point No. (f), marks scored by the selected candidates were denied arbitrarily.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 24.05.2023. As regards point No. (a), they expressed their desire to provide the Page 3 of 6 information. On point no. (e), the respondent stated that date for the declaration of result from the date of interview were informed the candidates individually. Against point No. (f) of the RTI application, the respondent stated that list of candidates was given and only the marks scored by the candidates were denied under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply has been given by the respondent vide letter dated 24.05.2023. The appellant during the hearing pressed for point Nos. (a), (e) and (f) of the RTI application only. Against point No. (a), the respondent expressed their desire to provide a copy of the relevant circular. On point no. (e), the respondent stated that date for the declaration of result from the date of interview were informed to the candidates individually. However, same was not provided to the appellant. Thus, reply given by the respondent was evasive. Further, against point No. (f) of the RTI application, the respondent denied the information about the marks scored by the selected candidates under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
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) vide its order dated 11.11.2024 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 Page 4 of 6 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.
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 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 observations, the Commission directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide the information sought on point Nos.
Page 5 of 6(a), (e) and (f) of the RTI application, within three weeks' time from 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 Copy To:
The FAA, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Boiler Auxiliaries Plant, Indira Gandhi Industrial Complex, Ranipet - 632 406 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)