Central Information Commission
Mr.Vishal Kumar Shrivastava vs Staff Selection Commission on 19 September, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002593
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 19 September 2012
Date of decision : 19 September 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vishal Kumar Srivastava,
Keshav Kunj, Near Payhari Maharaj Ji
College, Ram Nagar, Post Chandwa Ara,
Distt - Bhojpur, Bihar - 802 312.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Staff Selection Commission,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Randheep Thakur, US, was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Bhojpur studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. The Appellant had appeared in the Combined Graduatelevel Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and had not been declared successful even though he had higher marks than the last selected candidate. Therefore, under the right to information, he had wanted to know the reason for that. The CPIO did not respond to him within the stipulated period of 30 days. Thereafter, he filed his first appeal. Following this, he received a reply from the CPIO to the effect that he was not selected because he was overage. He had protested against this information by clearly stating in a fresh appeal addressed to the Appellate Authority that he was a Central Government employee and, therefore, he was entitled to age relaxation. CIC/SM/A/2011/002593 However, there was no response from the SSC.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant reiterated his position. He pointed out that the information provided to him was patently wrong since he could not have been disqualified on the ground of overage. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that he had provided the information as per the available records in the Head Office of the SSC according to which the Appellant was overage. Since the original records were held in the Western Regional Office of the SSC, according to the Respondent, it was possible that some mistakes might have been done in reporting about the candidate's status as a Central Government employee leading to the decision in the Head Office about his overage.
5. Be that as it may, there are two glaring shortcomings in this case. First, the CPIO had failed to provide any information within the stipulated period of 30 days. For this, he needs to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We direct the CPIO concerned to appear before us on the next date of hearing on 29 October 2012 at 10.30 a.m. and show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for this. Besides, we also direct him to bring along the officer concerned from the Western Regional Office of the SSC who had provided the information based on which the decision to declare the Appellant overage had been taken.
6. Secondly, now that the Appellant has clearly pointed out about his being a Central Government employee, we direct the CPIO to revisit the original records, wherever available, and to bring it to the notice of the authorities and send to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order the information on the revised status of his result, if any. Needless to say, all such CIC/SM/A/2011/002593 information should be duly supported by copies of relevant documents.
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/2011/002593