Central Information Commission
Mr.Ajit Kumar vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 31 August, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002283 & 2399
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 31 August 2012
Date of decision : 31 August 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ajit Kumar,
S/o. Late Shri Ayodhya Prasad
Srivastava, Ashok Nagar, Road No. 3B,
Kankarbagh Colony, Patna - 800 020.
Name of the Public Authority : Shri Satya Prakash,
Under Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Block No. 12, Kendriya Karyalay Parisar,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Satya Prakash, US was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Patna studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. The Appellant had appeared in the Combined Graduatelevel Examination in 2010. He had shown his service preference as QRP in the application form. However, it appears, he was recommended for a different service. In two identical RTI applications, the Appellant had wanted to know the basis for allocating him a service for which he had not given his preference. Since he did not receive any response from the CPIO in time, he had complained to the CIC. In our order dated 20 July 2011, we had directed the Appellate Authority to inquire into the matter and pass an appropriate order with CIC/SM/A/2011/002283 & 2399 a view to ensuring that the desired information was provided to the information seeker at the earliest. We had also directed him to obtain the explanation of the CPIO for not providing the information in time and send it to us with his comments.
4. During the hearing today, the Appellant pointed out that he had never opted for the service for which his name was recommended. He has enclosed documents to show his real preference. He claims that even the SSC had clearly stated his preference to be QRP in the mark sheet which had been uploaded in the SSC website. We have carefully examined the documents furnished by the Appellant along with his RTI application. There appears to be some serious mistake on the part of the SSC. There cannot be any ambiguity about the preference indicated by the Appellant; it can be found out from his application form itself. Therefore, the service preference mentioned by the Appellate Authority in his order dated 26 August 2011 is clearly at variance with what is stated in the mark sheet issued by the SSC and the application form of the Appellant. This needs immediate reconciliation.
5. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order the copy of his original application showing his service preference, the copy of his mark sheet and the record based on which he was eventually allocated a different service. In case, the SSC discovers that a mistake was made, needless to say, it must be rectified.
6. The Appellate Authority has not conveyed why the CPIO had failed to provide any information to the Appellant within the prescribed time limit of 30 days. We would like the then CPIO to show cause why we should not impose penalty on him in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act for this. We direct the present CPIO to forward a copy of this order to the officer who was posted as the CPIO at the relevant CIC/SM/A/2011/002283 & 2399 time so that the latter can appear before the Commission (Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066) on 20 September 2012 at 02.45 p.m. and explain the reasons for his failure to provide the desired information.
7. Both the appeals are disposed off 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/2011/002283 & 2399