Central Information Commission
Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4047/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000045
Dated, the 11th June, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan
Name of the Public Authority: Airports Authority of India (AAI)
i
Facts:
1. The complainant, an ex-serviceman, has submitted a complaint petition dated 14.1.09 against the respondent stating that the CPIO has not replied to his RTI application dated 1.12.08 even after the lapse of the mandatory period of thirty days.
2. Both the parties were heard on 20/3/2009 and 28/5/2009. The following were present:
On 20/3/2009:
Appellant: 1. Sh. Mohd. Ismail Khan Respondents:1. Sh. B.K. Verma, DGM (ATM); 2. Smt. Usha Dhingra, SM (P);
3. Sh. Harish Mehta, MGR (P); 4. Sh.. Anil Kumar, Sup. (O).
On 28/5/2009:
Appellant: 1. Sh. Mohd. Ismail Khan Respondents:1. Sh. B.K. Verma, DGM (ATM); 2. Sh. V.K. Sharma, Jt.G.M
3. Smt. Roselind Joseph, Sr.Mgr; 4. Sh. Anil Kumar,Supervisor(P) i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1
5. Sh. J.S. Bedi, AGM (Com.) ; 6. Sh. J.W. Ahlawat, SDA
3. The appellant has alleged irregularities in the process of recruitment for the post of Manager (Fire Services) for which he was also a candidate. He has stated that his name has not been short-listed along with other candidates, who have been selected for written test and interview.
4. In response to an advertisement No.2/2007 of Employment News dated 8
- 14 December 2007 for the post of Manager (Fire Services), the appellant submitted his application for appointment to the above post. A list of select candidates for written test was displayed on the notice board of the respondent.
When the appellant came to know that his name was not short-listed for written test, he submitted a representation dated October 23, 2008 addressed to the Executive Director, AAI, stating that he was professionally qualified to be called for the written test. He, therefore, pleaded that his name be included in the list of candidates called for the written test. But, he did not receive any reply from the Office of the Executive Director of the respondent. Subsequently, after about a month, he submitted his RTI application on December 1, 2008 and sought for certain information relating to the process of selection of candidates for written test, mainly the grounds on the basis of which some candidates were allowed to appear for the written test.
5. The CPIO, Shri. B.K. Verma, too did not reply within the stipulated period of thirty days. The complainant, therefore, submitted his complaint dated 14.1.09 to the Commission, in response to which the Commission issued notices for hearing in the matter and fixed the date of hearing on 20.3.09 vide its notice dated 16.2.09. In the meantime, the CPIO replied vide his letter dated 13th March 2009, whereby he supplied partial information, as under, which was received from the concerned office, about a month earlier, vide internal memo dated 13.2.09:
"Subject: Information under RTI Act-2005-PIO-1512 (Md. Ismail Khan) Reference your letter No.A.600011/41/2009-RTI-Pers. Dated 11/02/09, on the subject cited above.
The points with their reply as per record available in HR Cell are indicated below:
S. Question Reply
No.
1. Are (1) Shri Naresh Canjewar Roll Nos 546002, 516001, 516009
(Roll No.546002), (2) shri have fulfilled the qualification criteria
Mahesh Warbhe (Roll and 516007 does not meet the
No.516001), (3) Shri Prashant required qualification. It is also
Patil (Roll No.516009) and (4) pertinent to mention here that the final
Shri P.K. Deshmukh (Roll scrutiny is to be done at the time of
2
No.516007) in possession of interview and those who do not 1st class degree in meet the eligibility criteria are not Graduation? allowed to attend the interview which is yet to be conducted.
(i) If Yes - provide
photo copy of their (i) Copy of degree of the other
graduate degree. candidates cannot be
(ii) If No - provided as it is personal
(a) Disclose list of all information.
candidates permitted to
appear in written exam (a) Result yet not declared hence
but not possessing 1st cannot be provided. However,
class Academic Degree. those not possessing 1st class
(b) Photo copy/reference of degree will not be permitted to
corrigendum of post- attend interview.
advertisement (b) No Corrigendum for
change/modifications in Change/Modifications in
qualifications qualifications for the post of
Manager (Fire Service) was
issued.
5. What is reason for rejecting my You are not meeting the eligibility application even though I criteria as per Advertisement secured 51% marks in Post No.2/2007.
Graduation from UGC
recognized Annamalai
University, with an Ex-
serviceman Graduation
Degree, meeting age and other
all other professional
requirements vij. Grad IFE
Certificate, valid HTV license
etc. And that application was
submitted in time.
6. Provide a photo copy of Copy enclosed.
Representation for
consideration for Manager (Fire
Service) post dated 23rd
October 2008 that I had
submitted to the Executive
director (P&A) with his remarks.
7. Provide details of opportunities HR Cell is doing Recruitment in only given to Ex-serviceman and group 'B' and above and there is no Minority Class in last 10 years reservation for Minority Class/Ex- with percentage of total quota serviceman in Group 'B' and above.
This issues with the approval of GM (P)."3
6. In the course of hearing, the appellant stated that:
(i) He was professionally qualified for inclusion of his name for the written test and interview. But, for the reasons known to the respondents, his name was not included while the persons having comparable qualifications and experience were included in the list of short-listed candidates;
(ii) The candidates identified in his RTI application do not fulfil the essential qualification, as advertised, yet their names are included in the short-
listed candidates.
(iii) He has a Post-graduate Degree and a technical degree/qualification from Institute of Fire Engineers, England, and over 22 years of professional experience in fire services, including 15 years in Indian Navy and about five years with the respondent.
(iv) The information supplied to him, after more than three months is incomplete and misleading; and
(v) The respondent has proceeded ahead in the conduct of examination, ignoring the irregularities pointed out by him.
7. The CPIO and his colleagues explained the process of selection of the candidates for written test. It was stated that:
(i) In response to the RTI application, a point-wise response has been furnished vide his letter dated 13.3.2009.
(ii) One of the criteria for selection of candidates for written test was 1st class Graduation Degree. Since the appellant has a second class, he could not be included in the short-listed candidate.
(iii) There is a candidate, as identified by the appellant, who does not fulfil the essential qualification of having first class graduation degree. The task of scrutiny of application and short-listing of candidates was entrusted to a private body, namely the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. He was therefore unable to comment as to how the name of a candidate, who did not meet the required qualification, was included in the short-listed candidates;
(iv) The written test has already been conducted but the final selection of candidates has not been made as yet.4
(v) The recruitment process was not complete at the time of RTI application. Therefore, no reply could be given to the appellant.
(vi) Since the final selection of candidates is yet to be made, the irregularities, as pointed by the complainant, would be rectified in due course to ensure that the selection of candidates is made strictly on the basis of the qualification and experience as advertised in the Employment News.
8. On the basis of the submissions made by both the parties, the following major issues emerged for our discussion and examination.
(i) Whether there is any reasonable cause for inordinate delay in supply of the requested information for invoking section 20(1) of the Act on the ground of deemed refusal of the information.
(ii) Whether the use of the instrument of RTI is of any assistance to realize the objectives of transparency and fairness in the process of recruitment of candidates, without unduly violating the principles of equity and justice.
Analysis of Facts and Decision Notice:
9. The appellant has sought to know as to why his name was not included in the list of short-listed candidates. He used the internal mechanisms through his representation to the Executive Director, AAI, vide his note dated October 23, 2008, but there was no response. He was, therefore, constrained to resort to the provision of RTI. His RTI application dated 1.12.08 was replied on 13.3.2009, after the process of hearing was initiated by the Commission. The CPIO is thus held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the Act, since he did not respond within the stipulated period of thirty days. The CPIO is, therefore, liable to pay penalty @ Rs.250/- per day, up to a maximum of Rs.25,000/-, for neglect of his mandatory obligations.
10. It is also observed that the CPIO, Shri. B.K. Verma has sought the assistance, u/s 5(4) of the Act, of the concerned officials, who are deemed PIOs, being the custodian of information. In this process, partial information was provided by Shri. Harish Mehta, Manager (Pers.) on 13th February 2009. A point- wise reply was also furnished on 13.2.09 by Ms. Usha Dhingra, Sr. Manager (HR), which was forwarded, after a lapse of one month, to the appellant on 13.3.09 by Shri. B.K. Verma. Thus, all the above mentioned officials have, without any justifiable reasons, violated section 7(1) of the Act, as they provided the information after the lapse of mandatory period of thirty days. They are, therefore, held liable for payment of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act. In view of un- satisfactory and, therefore, un-acceptable explanations provided by them during 5 the hearing, a token amount of penalty, as under, is imposed u/s 20(1) of the Act, on the officials identified herein under:
Name of the CPIO/deemed PIO Amount of Penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act .
1. Sh. B.K. Verma, DGM & CPIO Rs.15,000/-(Rs. Fifteen thousand only)
2. Sh. Harish Mehta, Manager (Pers.) Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only)
3. Ms. Usha Dhingra, GM (HR) Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only)
11. The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, is directed to deduct the aforementioned amount @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the monthly salary of August 2009 of the above mentioned officers and deposit the same by way of Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, payable at New Delhi, to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.
12. Our assessment demonstrate that the respondent, i.e. Airports Authority of India, is not duly responsive to the demands for openness in its functioning, as required under the RTI regime. Neither the complainant's letter dated 23.10.08 to the Executive Director, AAI, was replied nor the RTI application dated 1.12.08 was attended to by the CPIO and the concerned officials, till the proceedings u/s 18 of the Act were initiated by the Commission in February 09. In his attempts to seek transparency in the recruitment process and to expose the illegality of deviation in adhering to the principle of equity and justice, the complainant has surely suffered harassments of all forms for a period of over six months or so.
There is no reason as to why the complainant should not be suitably compensated for the harassment and detriment suffered by him in the process of seeking information and exposing the irregularities in short-listing of candidates, which is admitted by the CPIO. Because of the lackadaisical attitude of the officials towards the implementation of the provisions of the Act, resulting in deemed refusal of requested information, the complaint was compelled to knock the doors of this Commission, which could have been avoided had the concerned officials replied to him on time.
13. The Chairman, Airports Authority of India is therefore directed u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act to pay, on behalf of the respondent, a token amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for all forms of losses suffered by the complainant, including the submission of petitions, attending hearings at the Commission, etc. This payment should be made through a Bank Draft in favour of the complainant on or before August 31, 2009, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be applicable. A compliance report should be submitted within one week from the date of action taken in this regard.
14. The instrument of RTI has been effectively used by the citizens for enhancing accountability and performance of public authorities. Transparency in 6 functioning of the public authorities enables people to provide feedback in respect of such critical areas as designing of programmes and implementation of public policies. Identification of problems and issues at the initial stages, through the inputs from the affected persons help in reducing wastages, ensure cost- effectiveness and, thus, improve the outcomes of public actions as well as the credibility of organisations. In absence of such inputs from the citizens, efficiency and productivity of organisations are unduly compromised.
15. In the instant case, the initiative taken by the complainant has led to exposure of the irregularities committed by the officials associated with the recruitment process. The criteria of short-listing candidate on the basis of 1st class graduation degree have been violated without any justifiable reason. As per this criteria while the complainant's name was justly excluded, another candidate, namely Sh. P.K. Deshmukh (Roll No.516007) was included, though he was also ineligible like the complainant. The CPIO has admitted that this candidate "does not meet the required qualification". It is unfair to say, as stated by the CPIO, that "the final scrutiny is to be made at the time of interview and those who do not meet the eligibility criteria are not allowed to attend the interview which is yet to be completed".
16. In effect, thus, the principles of equity and justice have been violated, which could be attributed to malafied reasons, which ought to be investigated. The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, is, therefore, directed to enquire into the matter to unearth the facts about the alleged violation of criteria for recruitment of Manager (Fire Services). He would be free to take appropriate action in the matter of recruitment process, including the disciplinary action against the officials responsible for violation of the selection criteria, which was made public through advertisement in the Employment News. The details of action taken in this regard should also be put in public domain to demonstrate that the AAI is duly fair and transparent in selecting professionally qualified persons for effective delivery of mandatory services.
17. The appellant did make a sincere effort to seek redressal of his grievances through internal mechanisms by writing to the Executive Director, AAI, vide his representation dated October 23, 2009, but of no avail. It shows that the grievance redressal mechanism of the respondent is either ineffective or non- existent. The Chairman, AAI, should consider strengthening the grievance redressal system so that the affected persons do not have to resort to the provisions of the RTI Act. In effect, thus, considerable time and resources of the public authority could be saved for attending to priority areas of activities that are handled by all of us.
18. It may not be out of place to suggest that the respondent should regularly organise education and training programmes for the officials to acquaint them with the provisions of the Act to facilitate the promotion of 7 openness in the functioning of the respondent, which is also mandated u/s 26 of the Act.
19. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan, RZ 125B Street No.9/2, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110 045.
2. Shri. B.K. Verma, CPIO, Airports Authority of India, Regional Headquarters, Northern Region, Operational Offices, Gurgaon Road, New Delhi - 110 037.
3. Shri. Harish Mehta, Manager (Pers.), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110 003.
4. Ms. Usha Dhingra, Sr. Manager (HR), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110 003.
5. The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110 003.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 8