Central Information Commission
Mrs. Lalita Kumari vs Supreme Court Of India on 22 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000571 dated 26.5.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Smt. Lalita Kumari
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Heard & Decision announced 22.7.'10
Facts:
By an application of 5.1.09 Ms. Lalita Kumari of Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India seeking the following information:
"I will be obliged if your honour kindly informs me as under together with relevant documents and file-notings;
1. Number of vacancies/ posts supposed to be filled at time of advertisement.
2. Complete selection procedure for the posts.
3. Number of candidates having appeared for all the tests including written, shorthand, computer and interview.
4. Maximum marks for written, shorthand, computer and interview tests separately.
5. Marks required for qualifying written shorthand, computer and interview tests separately indicating prescribed criterion to qualify shorthand test (including number of permissible mistakes).
6. Marks obtained by different candidates separately in written, shorthand, computer and interview.
7. Marks obtained by successful candidates separately in written, shorthand, computer and interview.
8. Copy of the merit list on the basis of which appointments were finally made.
9. Was any Panel as referred in the advertisement ever formed? If no, please give reasons. If yes, names of panel members indicating validity of the panel.
10. Selection procedure for candidates already employed at Supreme Court of India mentioning preference if any given to such candidates.
11. Number/ names of finally selected candidates who were already employed (in the same pay scale i.e. 6500-200-10500) separately at Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.
12. Number of candidates out of total 21 appointed candidates (Sr. P.A.) who joined the advertised post so far.
13. Number of posts reserved for OBC/General and SC/ST candidates. Whether all posts were filled up accordingly.1
14. Please supply copies of answer sheets of Written Test, Shorthand Test and Typing Test of all candidates who appeared in interview.
15. Reasons for not displaying final result of successful applicants at a time when result of written, shorthand, computer tests were displayed at Supreme Court website.
16. Complete file-notings on complete selection-procedure from the very beginning of vacancies being created.
17. The passages dictated for shorthand Test and Computer Typing Test this year (2008) is the same which was also dictated earlier when previous exam was conducted for the same post i.e. Sr. PA (1-2 years before). This has largely helped those candidates who had appeared in earlier exam also. The names of finally selected candidates who appeared in earlier exam also and the reasons for giving the same passages?
18. How many marks were kept reserved for interview? What were the main grounds of the interview (whether General Aptitude, General Knowledge, Personality Test, or General English etc? What was the prepared material for taking interview test and how many questions were asked from each candidate from that material? A copy of that material please be supplied."
To this, she received a pointwise response from CPIO Shri Raj Pal Arora, Additional Registrar, SCI, as follows:
"Point No. 1: 33 vacancies as on 29.4.2008. Point No. 2: Eligible candidates shall have to appear in the written test, short hand (English) test at the speed of 110 w.p.m. computer test with typing speed of 40 w.p.m. followed by an interview.
Point No. 3: 26 candidates Point No. 4: Maximum marks.
a) Written : 100
b) Shorthand: 100
c) Computer test to ascertain the knowledge of
computer operation and typing speed of 40 w.p.m. on computer.
d) Interview: 25 Point No. 5: Qualifying marks for written is 40 out of 100, shorthand 50 out of 100, typing speed of 40 w.p.m. on computer, which was qualifying in nature and in interview 13 marks out of 25, permissible mistakes, is 5% of the total words dictated in shorthand.
Points No. 6, 7, 8, 16: You are required to send Rs. 120/- (@ Rs. 2/- per page containing 60 pages) either in cash or Indian Postal Order or Money Order or Demand Draft drawn 2 in favour of Registrar, Supreme Court of India for obtaining the copies of the documents as desired by you. Point No. 9: Yes, Panel is valid for one year. Point No. 10: The selection procedure was same for all candidates, however, the age relaxation in the upper age limit up to 33 years was admissible to the candidates having 3 years continuous service in Supreme Court of India. Point No.11: No, Supreme Court employee is in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 finally selected. However, three candidates from Delhi High Court are selected namely (i) Ms. Nidhi Sharma (ii) Mr. Bharat Gulati & (iii) Ms. Shaloo Dhawan but there is no information available qua their scales in the High Court of Delhi.
Point No. 12: 16 candidates have joined so far. Point No. 13: Reserved in accordance with the Rules, Orders and Notifications issued from time to time by the Government of India in respect of posts carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale prescribed for the post of Senior Personal Assistant subject to such modification, variation or exception as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify. The posts were filled up accordingly. Point No. 14: Not in the purview of RTI Act.
Point No. 15: The written communications / telephonic communication for their selection were sent to the successful candidate immediately. It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to give reasons, comment, opine or advise on matters. Point No. 17: This is not correct.
Point No. 18: The last date for receipt of application for the advertised post was extended due to inadequate response to the advertisement with the approval of Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.
Point No. 19: 25 marks reserved for interview. There was no proposed material / question for interview. The material placed before the interview Committee / Judge was the marks obtained in different tests and the application form of the candidates who were being interviewed. Point No. 20: No."
In her first appeal dated 20.2.09 before Shri M. P. Bhadran, Registrar, Ms. Lalita Kumari while stating that she is submitting the required amount vide Indian Postal Order, has pleaded as follows:
"The information provided by Shri Raj Pal Arora, CPIO is very cryptic and it merely discloses the information as sought by me in 3 my petition. Specifically my point numbers 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19 have not been replied properly.' In his exhaustive order of 17.3.09, Shri Bhadran has found with regard to each question, as follows:
"Point no. 9 is in respect of the existence of panel as referred in the advertisement. CPO has given the reply to the effect that the panel is valid for one year. There is no ambiguity in the reply given by the CPIO as mentioned by the appellant in the appeal memorandum.
Point no. 11 is in respect of the names of finally selected candidates who are already employed in the pay scale i.e. Rs. 6500-200-10500 separately at Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. As per the reply given by the CPIO no Supreme Court employee in the pay scale mentioned above has been finally selected. However, three candidates from Delhi High Court are selected and the CPIO has furnish their names. There is no information available regarding their scales in the High Court of Delhi. There is no further information to be supplied by the CPIO on point No. 11.
As per point No. 13 appellant wanted to know the number of posts reserved for OBC/General and SC/ST candidates and whether all posts were filled up accordingly. As per the reply given by the CPIO reservation in accordance with the Rules, Orders and Notifications issued from time to time by the Govt. of India in respect of posts carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale prescribed for the post of Senior Personal Assistant subject to such modification, variation or exception as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify. The posts were filled up accordingly. In fact the advertisement itself is self-explanatory.
As per point No. 14, the appellant has sought copies of answer sheets of written test, short hand test and typing test of all candidates who appeared in interview. Accordingly to the CPIO the information sought on point No. 14 does not come within the purview of RTI Act. The information sought by the appellant also come within the exempted category as per Section 8(j) and also comes under Section 11 of the RTI Act. So, the information sought by the appellant cannot be furnished as per the relevant provisions mentioned above.
As per point no. 15 appellant has sought the reasons for not displaying final result of successful applicants at a time when result of written shorthand, computer tests were displayed at Supreme 4 Court website. The written communication / telephonic communication for their selection were sent to the successful candidates immediately. CPIO has informed the appellant that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India to give the reasons as sought by the appellant. In fact, CPIO can only furnish the information available as per the record.
In point No. 17 it has been observed by the appellant that the passages dictated for shorthand test and computer typing test in the year 2008 is the same which was also dictated earlier when previous examination was conducted for the same post (1-2 years ago). The said observation of the appellant has been denied by the CPIO in the reply.
Point no. 19 deals with the marks kept reserved for interview. The appellant has also asked as to what were the main grounds for the interview and whether there was prepared material for interviewing the candidates. 25 marks were reserved for interview. There was no prepared material / question for interview. The material placed before the interview Committee / Judge was the marks obtained in different tests and the application form of the candidates who were being interviewed.
There is no further information to be supplied by the CPIO on the above points. In the appeal memorandum appellant has sought fresh information on certain points, which the appellant had not asked from the CPIO. In the appeal memorandum appellant cannot ask information on new items and it cannot be accepted. CPIO has given separate answers for all the 20 points. All the available information has been supplied by the CPIO. I find no error in the impugned order of the CPIO. "
Ms. Lalita Kumari has then moved her second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"more than two months have passed, the CPIO/Appellate Authority, SCI have not provided me the relevant file noting for which an amount of Rs. 120/- has been charged from me. I have also not been supplied the copies of answer sheets of successful candidates, as requested.
In view of the above, it is requested to direct the Supreme Court of India to provide me the copy of relevant file noting with further development, if any and copies of answer sheets, as requested earlier. It is also requested to impose a penalty on the RTI 5 authorities of Supreme Court who has adopted a very casual attitude in supplying the information."
The appeal was heard on 22.7.10. The following are present:
Appellant Ms. Lalita Kumari Mr. Dalip Respondents Mrs. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer, Supreme Court of India Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for Supreme Court Learned Counsel for Respondents Shri Devadatt Kamat submitted his vakalatnama, which has been placed on file. Ld. Counsel for respondents Shri Kamat submitted that the amount of fee, directed to be paid for the file noting was paid only on 11.5.09 and 60 pages of noting were provided within two days thereafter on 13.5.09. Shri Dalip assisting appellant Ms. Lalita Kumari conceded that he had received the information but this was only 57 pages and not 60. Moreover, he submitted that the payment had been made along with the first appeal on 20.2.09 and not on 11.5.09, as argued by respondent. Ld. Counsel for respondents displayed the original file before us to show the number of pages, photostat copies of each of which had been provided to appellant Ms. Lalita Kumari. This was compared and the documents sent to Ms. Lalita Kumari found identical to the original, which although numbering 60 pages, carried numbers 1 to 57; hence leading to the confusion.
Ld. Counsel for respondent also submitted a copy of the noting from file dated 13.5.09 in which CPIO Shri Raj Pal Arora, Addl. Registrar in a note addressed to Registrar, has brought to his notice the following:
"Mrs. Lalita Kumari resident of New Delhi has preferred an appeal before the Central Information Commission against the Order dated 17.3.2009 of the 1st Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India in which she has inter-alia mentioned that she has not been supplied relevant file noting (60 pages) by the CPIO / Appellate Authority, SCI even after depositing Rs. 120/-. In this connection, it is stated that on checking the record with the CPIO, it has been found that Rs. 120/- have not been received. She has also enclosed copy of 6 First Appeal dated 20.2.2009 in which she has inter alia mentioned that she is submitting the required amount in the form of postal orders of Rs. 120/- bearing numbers 9II922727 and 46F999142 (photo copy enclosed).
Submitted for information and further directions."
The appeal file No. 30 of 2009 was then forwarded to CPIO who traced the postal orders and dispatched the information the very same day. A copy of this note sheet has been taken on record.
On the objections raised by appellant to answers provided to questions 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 & 19, each of these questions were examined in the hearing. On point No. 9, it apparently seemed that the names of panel Members had not been provided. However, Ld. Counsel for respondents Shri Kamat invited the attention of appellant to the copy of the file provided to her stating that Annexure A & B contain the name of the panel Members. Nevertheless he agreed to reconfirm this from the records and inform appellant accordingly over the coming week. On question 11, 14 & 17 and part of question 13, what appellant Ms. Lalita Kumari is seeking is further information. She is welcome to do so, but not at the level of the appeal. This can be done through a fresh application addressed to the CPIO, SCI with the usual fee. On question 13, the question asked was as follows:
Q.13 Number of posts reserved for OBC/General and SC/ST candidates. Whether all posts were filled up accordingly.
The response given was as below:
Ans.13 Reserved in accordance with the Rules, Orders and Notifications issued from time to time by the Government of India in respect of posts carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale prescribed for the post of Senior Personal Assistant subject to such modification, variation or exception as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify. The posts were filled up accordingly.7
It is confirmed by learned Counsel for respondents that the entire information contained in the answer to point 13 is available on the website and if the information sought against point 13 is for any specific date or examination, this can be downloaded from the website.
On point 15 appellant's contention is that "it is the duty of CPIO to collect the requisite information from the concerned Section / Department / Competent Authority from whichever it may pertain to and supply the same to the applicant."
DECISION NOTICE We find that with the clarifications given in the hearing and the receipt of the full documents by appellant Ms. Lalita Kumari, the information sought by her has indeed been provided. If she has further questions, she is welcome to move a fresh application u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO SCI. Besides, if she is dissatisfied with the proceedings adopted by the SCI, as in point No. 15, she is free to make a representation to the Registrar of the SCI to rectify what she deems to be any shortcoming. The information sought by Ms. Lalita Kumari in this application has, therefore, been supplied.
There remains then the question of the delayed dispatch of the information, agreed to be provided by CPIO. As discussed above, this delay is fully explained. However, it is clear that although the payment was made together with first appeal, Registry should immediately have taken note of this and have forwarded the fee to the CPIO, which had not been done. Unfortunately, the appellant herself has instead of making the payment to CPIO who had asked for the payment, attached this with her appeal to the Appellate Authority, thus accounting for the fact of this payment having been overlooked. While, therefore, we cannot hold any official liable for this delay in sending these documents, the Registry of SCI would be well to review the processing of RTI 8 applications to ensure that such a lapse did not recur. With these observations, this appeal is now dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 22.7.2010 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 22.7.2010 9