Central Information Commission
Mrsanjeev Kumar Birla vs Ministry Of Communications & ... on 12 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000965/7599
12 May 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla
#401, GHS-93, Sector-20,
Panchkula - 134117
Haryana
Respondent : CPIO
National Institute of Electronics and IT
(NIELIT)
SCO 114-116, Sector 17-B,
Chandigarh-160017
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2013
PIO replied on : 05/12/2013
First appeal filed on : 23/12/2013
First Appellate Authority order : 09/01/2014
Second Appeal dated : 22/03/2014
Information sought:-
The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. List of successful candidates who have cleared/passed written test for the post of Jr. Programmer from January 2008 to till date.
2. List of successful candidates who have cleared/passed written test for the post of System Analyst from January 2008 to till date.
3. List of successful candidates who have cleared/passed written test and interview for the post of Jr. Programmer from Jan 2008 to till date.
4. List of successful candidates who have cleared/passed written test and interview for the post of System Analyst from January 2008 to till date.
5. Provide me the certified copy of reservation policy, circular, scheme, correspondences regarding recruitment of SC and ST candidates.
6. Marks obtained by the shortlisted candidates for the post of Jr. Programmer those appeared into interview on dated 30/11/2009 and 01/12/2009.
7. Marks obtained by the shortlisted candidates for the post of System Analyst those appeared into interview on dated 30/11/2009 and 01/12/2009. Supply the copy of advertisement those interview were conducted during Nov/Dec 2009.
8. What was the basis/criteria/method of selection? Supply certified policy of recruitment.
9. Are your keep updating its rules, regulations, instructions and manuals from time to time?
10. Are you maintaining all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, with a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different system so that access to such records is facilitated?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 22/04/2015:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla through TC 09814900284 Respondent: Ms. Nidhi CPIO's representative through VC M: 9815712123 The appellant stated that no information has been supplied and he was also not allowed to inspect the records though he had called the PIO on telephone twice on 12/12/2013 & 13/12/2013.
The CPIO's representative informed that the CPIO is on emergency leave as her husband is hospitalized and requested for adjournment.
Interim Decision notice dated 22/04/2015:
The mater is adjourned for 12/05/2015 at 03.00 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing 12/05/2015:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla through VC 09814900284 Respondent: Mrs. Kiran Bala CPIO through VC The CPIO stated that the appellant had sought huge and voluminous information and hence he was offered inspection of the records but did not avail the offer. The appellant contested stating that he had merely sought copy of list of successful candidates for the post of junior programmer and system analyst and certain information relating to the reservation policy and the basis of selection but no information has been supplied. He pointed out that under query 7 he had merely asked for the list of short listed candidates and those who appeared for interview on 30/11/2009 and 01/12/2009 which hardly comprises of 3 to 4 pages and if the respondent had made little effort most of the information could have been easily supplied. The CPIO was unable to give any satisfactory reason for not supplying any information. She informed that a devastating fire had taken place and the roof of the building had collapsed leading to complete destruction of the records. The appellant pleaded that compensation should be allowed for the harassment and detriment suffered by him due to non-provision of information.
Decision Notice:
The relevant records based on which the information could have been supplied have been destroyed in the fire.
The appellant has not been provided the information. For the detriment caused he deserves to be compensated, therefore in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, we direct the department to compensate him by an amount of Rs.10000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2