Central Information Commission
Bharat Anand vs Gail (India) Limited on 11 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/GAILD/A/2024/640282
Shri Bharat Anand ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
GAIL (India) Limited
Date of Hearing : 08.11.2024
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.06.2023
PIO replied on : 27.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : 22.07.2023
First Appellate Order on : 09.08.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I had applied for the post of Senior Engineer (GAILTEL TC/TM) in E-2 Grade vide application no. 70008967 against GAIL advertisement no. GAIL/OPEN/SRD/3/2022. I was called for the interview by GAIL through email confirmation dtd. 24.03.2024. The interview was held on 11.04.2023. Vide GAIL letter no. GAIL/HRD/SRD-22 & Open/2023-24 dtd. 15.11.2023, it was informed that on the basis of my overall performance in the interview, the constituted committee did not recommend my name for selection against this post.
Please refer to the Court of Chief Commissioner for Person with Disabilities Order dtd. 02.04.2024 in my case no. 14630/1011/2023 in which GAIL as Respondent had submitted that passing marks in the interview was kept as 55% and marks obtained by me are less than 55%.
You are requested to kindly provide the following information under RTI :-
1. (a) Area of evaluation fixed by the interview board for judging 15% of the marks in the interview.
Page 1
(b) Maximum marks fixed by the interview board for each area of evaluation.
(c) Marks scored by me in each of these areas.
2. Total marks obtained by me in the interview out of 15.
3. Interview evaluation sheet prepared by the interview board.
4. The decision sheet of GAIL in which 55% marks were decided to be kept as minimum passing marks for interview in my category of selection as no requirement of minimum percentage has been mentioned in the advertisement."
The CPIO, GAIL (India) Limited vide letter dated 27.06.2023 replied as under:-
Information sought by the applicant Sh. Bharat Anand in respect of point No. 1(a), 1(B), 1(C) & Sl. 2 is mentioned below:-
Maximum Marks scored
Marks by Sh. Bharat
Anand
Personality 20 19
Verbal/Communication 20 9
Skill
Conceptual ability 20 9
Knowledge on the 40 10
subject
Total 100 47
Interview marks out of 7.05
15
Point No. 3:-The information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no connection with any public activity. However, information in respect of Sh Bharat Anand is provided at serial no 1 and 2. Point No. 4:-As per the extant policy for Executive cadre, SC/ST/PWD candidates has to score a minimum 55% marks in interview."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 09.08.2023 stated as under:-
"The 1 stage online RTI Appeal dated 22.07.2024 filed by Shri Bharat Anand has been considered under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The requisite information/comments furnished by CPIO, GAIL w.r.t Pt. No. 1 to 4 are found to be in order and the information provided by GAIL Corporate RTI Cell is upheld. However, information provided w.r.t. Pt.No. 4 needs to be reviewed and relevant extract of approved policy may be provided to the RTI Appellant. Accordingly, GAIL Corporate RTI Cell is advised to seek the same from concerned process owner to provide the same to the RTI Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this quasi-judicial appeal disposal order."
Page 2 In compliance with the FAO, Sr. Manager (RTI)/Link-CPIO, GAIL (India) Limited vide letter dated 20.08.2024 stated as under:-
The relevant extract of the approved policy is annexed at Anenxure-1 for providing the same to the RTI applicant in compliance to the Order passed by the 1st Appellant Authority under RTI Act. 2005 Annexure-1 "Extract of Selection process/Evaluation Methodology for recruitment in Executive cadre:
"(1) 60% weightage for the marks obtained in the Written Test / GATE.
In cases where there is no Written Test / GATE score, then 60% weightage for the marks obtained in the highest qualifying degree notified as Essential Qualification as per the job specifications. (2) 25% weightage for Performance in Group Discussion/ Proficiency Test / Physical Fitness Test or any other tool adopted for assessing the skill & competencies subject to scoring of a minimum of 40% for UR/OBC(NCL) & 35% for SC/ST/PWD candidates. (3) 15% weightage for Performance in the interview subject to scoring of a minimum of 60% for UR/OBC (NCL) & 55% for SC/ST/PWD candidates".
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 28.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
Vide his RTI request (GAIL RTI Dy.No.GAIL/ND/RTI/Bharat Anand/E/00211/2024) dtd.13.06.2024, the RTI Applicant has sought miscellaneous information w.r.t. GAIL'S Recruitment Advt. No.GAIL/OPEN/SRD/3/2022. Pointwise information w.r.t. RTI Applicant's application/appeal was provided as per the following:
Pt.No.1:
(a) RTI Applicant was informed about the area of evaluation fixed by the interview board for judging 15% of the marks in interview (copy of reply dtd.28.06.2024 attached).
(b) RTI Applicant was informed about the maximum marks fixed by the interview board for each area of evaluation (copy of reply dtd.28.06.2024 attached).
(c) RTI Applicant was informed about the marks scored by him in each area of evaluation under interview (copy of reply dtd.28.06.2024 attached).
Pt.No.2: RTI Applicant was informed about the total marks obtained by him in the interview out of 15 (copy of reply dtd.28.06.2024 attached). Pt.No.3:
Page 3 RTI Applicant was informed that disclosure of the information has no connection with any public activity. However, relevant information about the applicant was provided to him vide Pt.No.1 & 2 (copy of reply dtd.28.06.2024 attached).
Pt.No.4 :
RTI Applicant has sought "decision sheet of GAIL in which 55% marks were decided to be kept as minimum passing marks for interview in his category of selection." Accordingly, based on First Appellate Authority's Appeal Disposal Order dtd.09.08.2024, relevant extracts of selection process/evaluation methodology for recruitment in executive cadre was provided to him vide communication dtd.20.08.2024 (copy attached for ready reference).
It is worthwhile to mention that RTI Applicant has also filed Appeal before Chief Commissioner for Person with Disabilities w.r.t his non- selection in the interview. However, no relief was provided to him in the matter by the Commissioner.
Now, in his 2nd stage appeal before the Central Information Commission, RTI Appellant has sought additional information, which is in deviation from the information initially sought by applicant vide his application dtd. 13.06.2024. However, in view of greater transparency and accountability in the working mechanism of the public authority. It is to inform the RTI Appellant that Public Authority's Selection Methodology was duly approved on dt.13.02.2019 by the then Director (HR).
Written submission dated 15.10.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Mr. Vijay Anand and Ms. Mani Anand- Authorised Representative of the Appellant-participated in the hearing Respondent: Mr. N.K. Sunarnu, GM(HR-legal/CPIO - participated in the hearing.
The authorised representatives of the Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date. They further stated that the complete policy whereby 55% marks were decided to be kept as minimum passing marks for interview for the selection for the post of post of Senior Engineer, specifically in reference to the PwBD category, has not been provided by the PIO and only extract of the policy has been furnished. They further stated that note sheet with respect to policy decision has not been supplied by the PIO till date. They stated that no requirement of minimum percentage was notified in the advertisement for the post of senior engineer.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been provided to the Appellant. Tey further stated that in compliance of the order of the FAA relevant extract of the approved policy has ben provided to the Appellant. They further stated that note sheet with respect to approved Page 4 policy/policy decision was not sought by the Appellant in his original RTI Application. They affirmed to provide the copy of complete policy as followed by GAIL in reference to the selection for the post of Senior Engineer.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply with respect to point No. 4 of the instant RTI Application i.e. specifically furnish copy of complete policy as followed by GAIL in reference to the selection for the post of Senior Engineer along with necessary annexures if any , as available in their records, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
However, as regards the other points of the RTI Application, the Commission observes that that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)