Central Information Commission
Mrs.Ruma Chakraborty vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 26 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001951/BS/0896
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Ruma Chakraborty
C/o Sri Sudhir Kr. Sardar
235/1, B.B. Ganguly Street,
Kolkata - 700012
Respondent : CPIO
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Headquarters Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi - 110002 RTI application filed on : 25/03/2011 PIO replied : 23/05/2011 & 31/05/2011 First appeal filed on : 03/06/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 16/06/2011 Second Appeal received on : 03/08/2011 Information Sought:
1- Whether the post SSO (previously Ins. Inspector) in ESIC is a Grade 'C' post? If, yes, what is the Recruitment Regulation? What are the provisions for promotion to the post of SSO under the said Recruitment Rule? Is there any provision of 'Bench Mark' in promotion from H C/Asstt. to SSO in the said Recruitment Regulation?
2- The year-wise list of candidates appeared in the Departmental Test for promotion to the post of SSO(the-then 1.1) alongwith marks obtained subject wise by each candidate and the vacancy position for 07-08, 08-09, 09-10, 10-11.
3- The Memo/circular inviting application from the candidates for appearing in the departmental exam, clearly stating whether any qualifying marks/bench marks were fixed and if yes, under which provision and whether it was intimated to the candidates? If not, the reason thereof.
4- Whether any candidate made any request for reviewing the answer script after the result being published during 07-08 or 08-09? If yes, whether it was reviewed? if yes, by whom? And provide me a copy of his/her findings.
Reply of the CPIO:
On query 1 it was informed that the Post of SSO is a Group 'C' post, the Recruitment' Regulations of SSO, are clear in themselves. Information on queries 2, 3 & 4 has been provided vide letter dated 31/05/2011.
Grounds for the First Appeal:Page 1 of 3
The PIO has not provided complete information, moreover the partial information was also provided very late.
Order of the FAA:
A perusal of the papers shows that complete information has been provided to the appellant. The information on query 2, 3 & 4 which was provided earlier to the appellant is being given to the Appellant again.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has provided only partial information. The PIO is hiding information related to 2007-08 and 2008-09 as in these years there have been gross irregularity. The FAA had only forwarded the information and did not look into the matter.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Raj Kanwal CPIO's representative & others.
The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing, however, she is absent. The CPIO stated that all information requested by the appellant in her RTI application dated 25/03/2011 has been furnished to her vide letters dated 23/05/2011 & 31/05/2011. It is seen from record that the appellant has stated that she is not satisfied with the reply given for query 1 & list of candidates, marks obtained etc., for departmental examinations for the years 2007-08 & 2008-09 have not been furnished. The CPIO stated that as regards query 1 the recruitment rules contain information on all her queries and records for 2008-09 have been traced and information forwarded to her vide letter dated 25/09/2012. The appellant is not present for making her submission/contesting the facts.
Decision Notice:
The Commission notes that the information as available on record has been furnished. The CPIO is directed to go through the records carefully and in case the information for the year 2007- 08 is traced, the same should be furnished to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order.
If, however, the said details are not traceable, a declaration to the effect should be furnished to her.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner September 26th, 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (rohan) Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3