Central Information Commission
Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 16 July, 2010
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.5622/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2010/000283
Dated, the 16th July, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Kutty
Name of the Public Authority: Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Facts: i
1. Both the parties were heard on 8/7/2010. While the appellant was present in person, the CPIO was represented through his colleague, Shri. Krishna Murthy.
2. The appellant has alleged that the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has not been complied with by the CPIO. He has, therefore, pleaded for providing the information as per the order of FAA dated 11/12/2009.
3. The appellant has asked for a copy of merit list prepared on the basis of personal interviews conducted by the respondent on 30/11/1996 for the post of Junior Operator (Field), for which the appellant's son was also interviewed by the Selection Committee. In response to the RTI application, the CPIO informed as under:
"The information/documents sought are personal in nature pertaining to selection/recruitment event and disclosure of this information has no relationship with any public activity or interest. As such, the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.".
4. Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's decision, the appellant filed his first appeal before the FAA of the respondent. The FAA set aside the decision of the CPIO and ordered for providing the information asked for. The FAA vide his order dated 11/12/2009 made the following observations:
"Conclusion:
I have examined the queries raised by the Appellant, reply of the Respondent and grounds of appeal. Since the information sought by Shri i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 Mohammed Kutty relating to the interview held on 30/11/1996 for the post of Junior Operator (Field) at Bottling Plant, Calicut, Chelari P.O. Malappuram District in Kerala State, in which his son was one of the candidates appeared for interview, I do not agree with the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant is a personal information and is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The rank list of the selected candidate for the above interview, as sought by the Appellant, is relating to the process of selection of staff which should be put in public domain to ensure transparency and fairness in recruitment of competent persons and more over the selection process is complete and over, there is no justification for not disclosing the merit list prepared by the Respondent. Moreover, the captioned information has also been furnished to the Malappuram Employment Exchange vide Ref: P/1121/96(19) dated 21.02.1997. Therefore, the information, as sought, by Shri Mohammed Kutty, as above, cannot be denied.
Final Order:
In view of the above observations and conclusion, the Respondent is directed to furnish the information, as sought, in the appellant's application dated NIL, which was received by this office on 07.10.2009, if the same is available in the material form within 15 working days from the receipt of this Order.
Accordingly, the Appeal dated 12th November, 2009 stands disposed off with the above directions."
5. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the CPIO has not complied with the order of the FAA. He, therefore, pleaded that the information should be provided to him as per the direction of the FAA.
6. The CPIO's representative, Shri. Krishna Murthy, stated that: (i) the appellant's son has grievances regarding appointment to the post of Junior Operator (Field); (ii) the appellant has sought for legal relief at different fora but he did not succeed; and (iii) the information asked for by the appellant was not maintained as per the Record Retention Policy of the respondent. And, therefore, the same could not be furnished.
7. In his written submission dated 14/7/2010, the CPIO, Shri. K Manickam, has stated as under:
"As regards the rank wise list, as per the existing policy of the Corporation at the relevant time, the panel list of candidates appearing in interview was kept in a file separate from the general recruitment file, since the same was considered as confidential. The panel list was to be maintained for a period of 2 years only, to call the next candidate from the list in case 2 any of the selected candidates did not join after selection. Since all the selected candidates in the interview in question here joined in 1997, perhaps the list was destroyed as per the existing policy."
Decision:
8. The averments made during the hearing and the evidences on record clearly indicate contradictory responses by the officials of the respondents. First, the CPIO refused to provide the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The FAA of the respondent rejected and reversed the decision of the CPIO and ordered for disclosure of information. The order of FAA has not been complied with, however. Second, in his submission before the Commission, the CPIO who earlier rejected the appellant's application for information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act has now stated that "perhaps the list was destroyed", which is questionable. If the relevant information was not maintained, why was it not reported or mentioned in the initial response of the CPIO to the appellant? Even the FAA has not made a mention of this point as to whether the information in question has been destroyed or not. The FAA has rejected the contention of the CPIO and order for providing the information. There is, therefore, no ground to believe that the information is not maintained or available. The CPIO has indeed lied or mis-informed with a view to suppressing the information relating to the recruitment process and merit list of selected candidates.
9. It also emerged during the hearing that as many as five persons were appointed out of the list of 18 candidates, whose names were supplied to the respondent by the Employment Exchange. There are reasons to believe that the concerned list of appointees may be available in the concerned file of the candidates who were appointed by the Selection Committee on the above mentioned date. The fact that the FAA has also ordered for disclosure of the information makes us believe that the relevant information are available with the respondents. The CPIO has deliberately chosen to withhold the information on the pretext of non-availability of information, which is not acceptable. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to furnish the information asked for, as per the order of the FAA, at the earliest.
10. In view of the above, the CPIO is also held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the Act as he has not furnished the information even after a lapse of over six months of the passage of the order of the FAA. He should, therefore, explain as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act, for deemed refusal of information without any reasonable cause. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 26th August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which the above amount of penalty would be imposed on him.
311. The CPIO has failed to carry out the directions of his superior officer, the FAA. This tantamounts to insubordination, and is unbecoming of an officer holding the charge of the CPIO also. The respondent's Chairman is directed u/s 20(2) of the Act, to take appropriate action, under the service rules, against the CPIO, who has failed to implement the decision of the FAA dated 11/12/2009.
12. The Commission also holds that the appellant has unnecessarily suffered all kinds of harassment in pursuing his RTI applications, including filing of 1 st and 2nd appeals. Had he been given the information, as per the order of the FAA, he would not have filed the second appeal before the Commission and traveled a long distance for attending the hearings in the Commission, for accessing information that are directly connected with right to work and earn for living. It is due to lack of both transparency in the selection process and responsiveness of the officials of the respondent to the information seekers that the appellant has unnecessarily suffered and wasted time and resources for obtaining information from the respondent.
13. The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee, should therefore explain as to why an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) should not be awarded, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, as compensation to the appellant for detriment suffered by him in seeking information from the respondent. The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee should submit an explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 26th August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which the above amount of compensation would be awarded to the appellant on account of all kinds of losses suffered by him. The appellant may also be present in the hearing.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissionerii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Deputy Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Mohammed Kutty, Karuvathil House, Padiramanna, P.O. Puzhakkattiri, Via. Angadippuram, Dist. Malappuram.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 4
2. Shri. K. Manickam, CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road (Nungambakkam High road), Chennai - 600 034.
3. Shri. P. Rajendran, Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road (Nungambakkam High road), Chennai - 600 034.
4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3079/3 J.B. Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi - 110 409.
5