Central Information Commission
Ms. Neetu Sharma vs Union Public Service Commission on 14 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00770 dated .2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Neetu Sharma
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission
Facts:
In the present case the appellant filed an application under R.I.T. Act with the CPIO of UPSC on 22.2.2007 and sought the following information :
"The following information may please be provided to me in respect of the grade of Private Secretary of CSSS on the basis of SO/PS Departmental examination, 2003 under the RTI:
1. UPSC has sponsored the name of Shri S. Sivaramakrishnan for the post of Private Secretary on the basis of LDCE 2003. However, the marks obtained by Shri Sivaramakrishnan and Shri Rajesh Sharma are the same i.e. both of them have secured 292 each. What is the criteria for recommending the name of only Shri Sivaramakrishnan and the reasons therefore?
2. Whether UPSC is also considering the name of Shri Rajesh Sharma against the vacancies reported by DOPT, as Shri S. R. Raja and Ms. Mansi Mehta have refused to join as Private Secretary on the basis of LDCE 2003? If yes, by what time it will be decided? If no, the reasons therefore?"
The CPIO in reply dated 23.3.07 informed the applicant :
"Finalized strictly in accordance with the scheme and rules of the examination."
Being unsatisfied on reply of CPIO the appellant preferred 1st appeal on 9.4.07 and deciding the appeal on 8.5.07 the authority held that :
"As regarding 3(i) above, the CPIO has replied factually stating therein the rule position in respect of said examination. Hence it does not require any further consideration. With regard to 3(ii) above, the CPIO has stated in his reply that the Commission is not in a position to share the said information. What the appellant is asking through this could be a matter of record and has apparently no relation with any procedure of processes of result processing the said Examination.
In view of this ,I think the ends of justice would meet if the factual position is told to the appellant. The case is, therefore, remanded back to the CPIO for examining the request No. 3 (ii) of the appellant in the light of the above and inform the appellant of the factual position within a period of seven days from the date of passing of this order."
The appellant on 30.5.07 filed Second appeal before the Commission and prayed :
"1. Direct the UPSC's CPIO to provide information to the appellant and action u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act for providing false and misleading information.
2. Penalty against the CPIO for failing to provide complete information despite the orders of First Appellate Authority."
Thereafter in pursuance of the orders of Appellate authority the CPIO after reminder from appellant on 21.5.07 stated that "the matter regarding release of the names in view of Shri S.R.Raja & Mansi Mehta is presently under consideration. The names of the next candidates in order of merit can be revealed only after a final decision on the matter is taken by the Commission.
The CPIO has not correctly informed the appellant as to why the name of Shri S. Swaramakrishnan was proposed/sponsored for the post of Private Secretary, despite the fact that both Sh. Sitaramakrishnan and Sh. Rajesh Kr. Sharma have secured equal marks.
The reply of CPIO and order of F.A.A. both are not satisfactory and they tend to disturb the system of transparency.
Learned Counsel for respondents Ms. Amita Kalkal submitted that the hearing notice had been received late and, therefore, sought adjournment to enable respondents to present their arguments in the present case. Shri Rajesh Sharma, authorised representative of Ms. Neetu Sharma, Appellant submitted that the answers to both questions asked by him were vague and did not specifically reply to the questions asked. Thus, whereas appellant's question No.1 was specific on the criteria for recommending the name of only one candidate, whereas the another had received equal marks, response only mentions that the result was finalized strictly in accordance with the scheme and rules of the examination. Which specific rules and which scheme has not been disclosed. Similarly, although the first Appellate Authority Shri Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secretary remanded the case to the CPIO to inform the appellant of the factual position within a period of seven days from the date of passing of this order, this has not been provided, simply stating that the matter is under consideration.
To enable the respondents to present their arguments in the matter the hearing is adjourned to 14th November, 2008 at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, the appeal was heard on 14.11.08. The following are present :
APPELLANT Shri Rajesh Sharma, Authorised representative. RESPONDENTS Shri Basab Sen Gupta U.S., UPSC Shri Surinder Kumar, U.S., UPSC Shri Mahendra Sharma, Dy. Secy.
Shri G. R. Raiger, U.S. Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Amita Kalkar Chaudhary, Advocate Learned Counsel for respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted his response in writing, of which a copy was also handed over to appellant. Appellant Shri Rajesh Sharma, however, submitted that this statement did not answer either of the two questions that he had raised.
On the second question learned Counsel Shri Naresh Kaushik invited our attention to para 2(2) of his submission which reads as follows:
"With regard to the delay by the CPIO in giving reply to the appellant in terms of the order of the appellate authority is considered, it is submitted that the order was passed by the appellate authority on 8.5.2007 giving seven days to the CPIO and that reply was due on 15.5.2007. During this period, the work relating to Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2007 was going on in full swing which was scheduled on 20.5.2007. This examination is very high candidature examination and the CPIO being the Examination Branch functionary was fully occupied during the period in arranging the smooth conduct of the examination and various other activities to accomplish this examination. The examination was conducted on 20.5.2007 and thereafter reply was promptly given on 21.5.2007. Keeping in view the aforementioned constraints the Hon'ble CIC may be requested to condone this delay."
He also submitted a copy of the letter of the Department of Personnel & Training to the Ministry of Water Resources dated 4.3.08 recommending the appointment of Shri Rajesh Sharma on the basis of the same departmental examination.
On the question of criterion for making recommendations, even though two candidates may have scored identical marks in the examination, learned Counsel submitted that this information was confidential and he, therefore, submitted a copy of a report from the UPSC which stated this criterion. Shri Mohinder Sharma Dy. Secretary UPSC submitted that the departmental examination is made in two components - (1) the written examination and (2) ACRs. Besides this, a skill test serves as a preliminary for qualifying to be adjudged in the departmental examination. It was the case of the learned Counsel for appellant that this question addresses the code of the examination structure and its disclosure would lead to dilution of the every examination system. The letter under the sealed cover was returned to envelop and given back to the Dy. Secy. Shri Mohinder Sharma duly sealed, a receipt for the same has been placed on record.
DECISION NOTICE Having examined the file and heard the parties, we find that indeed the two questions raised by appellant had not been answered. Q. No. 2 including the question of time by when orders for the appointment or recommendations of his appointment were to be made, have now been answered. However, respondents have taken the plea of confidentiality to deny the applicant the information sought by him with regard to question (1). Having perused the confidential documents submitted, we cannot find the information sought to be kept confidential as covered by any of the exemptions permissible u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act. In earlier cases concerning examination results UPSC have argued for confidentiality under sec. 8(1)(d) on the grounds that disclosure would harm the competitive position of third party. In this case since the criterion adopted is one, which concerns the weightage given to the written part and the ACR part of the examination forming the basis for recommendations of employment to be made can readily be supplied without impairing such a competitive position. Respondents have argued that since this exemption has thus far up held the view that ACRs are confidential documents, it was, therefore, felt that the weightage given to ACRs as compared to the weightage given to the written examination should not be disclosed. However, such an argument is bagging the question. The components of the ACR have nowhere been asked for. It is only the conclusion arrived at after perusing the ACRs that form the basis of assessment in the departmental examination. Hence under no circumstances can we argue that such information be exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1), The appeal of Ms. Neetu is thus allowed. The information sought with regard to question (2) has now been provided. The remaining information with regard to question (1) will be provided to appellant within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 14.11.2008 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 14.11.2008