Central Information Commission
Mr. Ajaipal vs Staff Selection Commission on 15 February, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001061
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15 February 2013
Date of decision : 15 February 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ajai Pal,
S/o. Shri Lakhim Chand,
Vill & P O Bawal, (Gujran Chowk),
Tehsil Bawal,
Distt. - Rewari,
Haryana - 123 501.
Name of the Public Authority : Shri Nityananda Ray,
Under Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission,
CGO Complex, Block No. 12,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
CPIO, Staff Selection Commission,
(NWR), Block No. 3, Ground Floor,
Kendriya Sadan,
Sector 9A,
Chandigarh - 160 017.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent , the following were present:
(i) Shri Nityananda Ray, US,
(ii) Shri Hari Ram, SSC, Chandigarh
CIC/SM/A/2012/001061
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was not present for the hearing in spite of notice. The Respondents were present both in the Chandigarh studio of the NIC and in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. It seems the Appellant had appeared in the examination conducted by the SSC for recruitment to the post of Constable in various Central Paramilitary Forces in 2011. It is in connection with this that he had sought a number of information including the details of his own medical test and the evaluated OMR sheet. Although he had applied for the information on 12 December 2011, the CPIO of the headquarters of the SSC provided him with only one item of information only on 4 April 2012, that is, nearly 2 months beyond the stipulated period. Part of the information was to be provided by the Chandigarh office of the SSC to which the application was forwarded only in February by the Appellate Authority. The Respondent appearing in the Chandigarh studio submitted that some information was sent to the Appellant sometime in December last year.
4. From the above account, it is quite clear that various officers of the SSC have dealt with this particular RTI application with least seriousness and very casually. Even after the lapse of more than one year, it is not clear if the entire information has been provided to him. From the submissions made by the Respondent from Chandigarh, it appears that the medical test of the candidates including the Appellant had been botched up initially and, on further medical test, several candidates including the Appellant, originally declared as unfit, were found fit and recommended for appointment. The final selection of the CIC/SM/A/2012/001061 Appellant, however, is no consolation for not getting the information for nearly one year when he should have received it within 30 days.
5. In the light of the above, it is quite clear that both the CPIO in the Head Office of the SSC as well as the one in the Chandigarh Office have a lot to explain about this inordinate delay. We direct that both the officers concerned must appear in person before us on the next date of hearing on 1 April 2013 at 12.15 and show cause why we should not impose the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 on them for such delay in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6. Before appearing before us for the hearing, the CPIO concerned in each of these offices must ensure that the entire information as desired, except the names of all the candidates invited for the medical test, should be provided to the Appellant and show proof of having dispatched the information.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001061