Central Information Commission
Biswaranjan Mandal vs Quality Council Of India on 19 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/QCIND/A/2023/622827
Biswaranjan Mandal .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Quality Council of India,
Second Floor, Institution of
Engineers Building, Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024
Date of Decision : 18.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"1 Request to provide the information regarding number of candidate accepted/ considered and undergone for NABL assessor course as per ISO/IEC 17025:2017 conducted by NABL/QCI and their age above 55 years after implementation date i.e. 25.04.2016.Page 1 of 6
2 QCI mentioned that NABL does not reject any candidate. Selection of the candidate shall be done by NABL based on its current/anticipated requirements in specific fields/facilities and availability of trained assessors in its pool. Only selected participants are informed and other not informed. Request for Information/ documentary evidence (Sl No. 2(i) and 2(ii) below requested please) 2(i) QCI/NABL never published its current/anticipated requirements before conducting the course. I am providing the followings candidate names (Now they are assessors). Please provide information of current/anticipated requirements during selection for the course conducted by NABL below mentioned candidate. And also provide the information what requirements I could not fulfil during selection process for which i have not selected for same course. Name of the Candidates are given below:
(i) Sri A Mathuraman, Scientist -B (Elect) of National Test House (experience related evidence)
(ii) Shri A.K Pandey Scientist-B(Elect) of National Test House (experience related evidence)
(iii) Shri P Rajanikant, Scientist -C (Elect) of National Test House (Regular Degree course related evidence)
(iv) Shri Yogesh Singh, Scientist-C(Elect), National Test House (Regular Degree course related evidence)
(v) Shri Suresh Babu, Director NTH(NR)(age related evidence)
(vi) Shri K. Jeyraj, Scientist-C (Elect) of NTH(SR) (age related evidence) Please provide the information regarding (i) current/ anticipated requirements during selection for course (ii) Age &(iii) regular degree course during their selection of above named persons.
2 (ii) I am the only applicant who has worked/working in different organization (Military standard, Japanese standard, CQAL standard (under defence), & IEC standards in different organization for electrical & electronics equipment's as per NABL requirements. And none of the above named candidate mentioned at sl No 2(i) had same level exposure/ experience but they have considered for course. Request for Documentary evidence /information regarding selection of above (i to vi) mentioned candidates for said course and rejection/ not considering my candidature.
3 QCI/NABL Intimated vide e mail only Full time Bachelor's degree in Engineering/ Technology or a Master's degree in Science is eligible for course. The following two official of National Test House have been selected for NABL assessor course and now performing the duties as NABL assessors.
(i) Shri P Rajanikant, Scientist -C (Elect) of National Test House.
(ii) Shri Yogesh Singh, Scientist-C(Elect), National Test House.
Please provide the information above two persons qualification whether meets the NABL requirements if no please provide documentary evidence for selection condition.
Page 2 of 64 Recent NABL course under same subject candidates having more than 55 years of age have participated and allowed by NABL, however my name has not been considered after several application and NABL stated as the sole discretion of NABL Name of the Candidate above 55 years considered for course given below :
Shri Suresh Babu, Director NTH(NR) Shri K. Jeyraj, Scientist-C of NTH(SR) Please provide the details of information regarding their age during selection of Course and if there age was more than 55 years, which is not meets the NABL requirements. Provide the documentary evidence / information for age relaxation given to them under which authority of NABL (As per requirement of NABL is maximum 55 years).
5 Please provide nos. of candidates are selected for subject course age above 55 years and also without regular degree course after implementation of condition for selection process i.e. after 25.04.2016. Please provide the list of selected candidates whose
(i) age above 55 years &
(ii) (ii) without regular degree course as per NABL requirements.
6 QCI Stated that record retention policy of NABL is for 5 years. Information requested for Following:
(i) Documentary evidence for completion of assessor course by Sri Sher Singh, Scientist D(NDT)& (ii) Sri DVS Prasad of National Test House which was conducted during the month of Jan 2011 by NABL.
(ii) Please provide the documentary evidence for not selection my candidature by NABL My application was also submitted together but not considered."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.02.2023 stating as under:
"1. Since 25.04.2016; a total of 32 candidates having age above 55 years had undergone for NABL Assessor Course as per ISO/IEC 17025:2017.
2. QCI mentioned that NABL does not reject any candidate. Selection of the candidate shall be done by NABL based on its current/ anticipated requirements in specific fields/ facilities and availability of trained assessors in its pool. Only selected participants are informed and other not informed. Request for information/ documentary evidence (SI. No. 2(i) and 2(ii) below requested please) 2(i) Information sought is confidential and personal information of third party which has been submitted to NABL in fiduciary capacity. Hence, the same cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1) (e) and Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. It is informed that Assessor training course is not an open course. The selection of the candidate Page 3 of 6 shall be done by NABL based on its current/ anticipated requirements in specific fields/ facilities. As these assessors are being used by NABL for the purpose of conducting NABL Assessments, therefore, selection of participants is at the sole discretion of NABL.
2 (ii) It is informed that Assessor training course is not an open course. The selection of the candidate shall be done by NABL based on its current/anticipated requirements in specific fields/facilities. As these assessors are being used by NABL for the purpose of conducting NABL Assessments, therefore, selection of participants is at the sole discretion of NABL.
3. Information sought is confidential and personal information of third party which has been submitted to NABL in fiduciary capacity. Hence, the same cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1) (e) and Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, Assessor training course is not an open course. The selection of the candidate shall be done by NABL based on its current/ anticipated requirements in specific fields/facilities. As these assessors are being used by NABL for the purpose of conducting NABL Assessments, therefore, selection of participants is at the sole discretion of NABL.
4. Information sought is confidential and personal information of third party which has been submitted to NABL in fiduciary capacity. Hence, the same cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1) (e) and Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Further to inform that mentioned participants were meeting the age criteria at the time of their selection for the course.
5. (i) Refer reply given at Sr. No. 1.
NABL assessors are external experts, trained and empanelled by NABL for conducting assessments on need basis. Hence, information pertaining to list of candidates selected by NABL cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the same comes under non- disclosure document category and mentioned on QCI website under the following link:
https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ckdocs/Statement%20of%20the%20categories%20 of%20documents%20held%20or%20under%20control.pdf
(ii) 05 candidates were not having regular degree but they were fulfilling requirements of NABL.
6 (i) Information sought is confidential and personal information of third party which has been submitted to NABL in fiduciary capacity. Hence, the same cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1) (e) and Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) As per record retention policy of NABL, records are available with NABL for 05 years. Hence, information sought through point 6(ii) is not available with NABL."
Page 4 of 6Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 24.03.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Hari Prakash, CPIO-cum-Director, Shri Neeraj Verma, APIO, Dr. Pankaj Goyal, Joint Director, Shri Jagminder Kataria, APIO and Ms. Shilpa Khanna, APIO, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and pointwise reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.02.2023.
A written submission has been received from Dr. Hari Prakash, Director and CPIO, vide letter dated 05.07.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2. Submissions of NABL/QCI highlighting facts:
i. NABL criteria pertaining to selection of assessors- NABL assessors are external experts, trained and empanelled by NABL for conducting assessment on need basis. Selection of candidates is done by NABL based on its current/ anticipated requirements in specific field/ facilities and criteria is available in public domain under link: https://nabl-india.org/assessors-training-course- eligibility-selection-criteria/ This process has been thoroughly detailed and communicated in our RTI reply and clarification has also been provided in the said matter to applicant. ii. Transparency pertaining to assessor selection process- The appellant's representation through second appeal does not accurately reflect the information provided by NABL/QCI in the RTI reply and facts related to the assessor selection process have been misrepresented.
NABL assessors are external experts, trained and empanelled by NABL for conducting assessment on need basis and selection is based on criteria as adopted by NABL and mentioned on NABL website.Page 5 of 6
NABL/QCI has been fully transparent with the applicant and has disclosed all relevant information to the applicant through the RTI response as per provision of RTI Act, 2005.
• All requested information has been provided accurately and without omission. There has been no attempt to withhold any facts, and we have made every effort to supply comprehensive and truthful information in response to the applicant's queries. It is noteworthy that the appellant has been filing repeated RTIs on similar matter, possibly motivated by personal grievances due to not being selected as an assessor. NABL/QCI treats all applications fairly and in accordance with the established criteria. In view of the above facts, it is humbly requested to kindly consider submissions of QCI. However, any further directions from Hon'ble CIC shall be abided by Quality Council of India."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that an adequate and pointwise reply in terms of RTI Act has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 09.02.2023. Moreover, the Appellant has not participated in the hearing to contest his case. No intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)