Central Information Commission
Mallavarapu Ramakrishna Reddy vs Staff Selection Commission on 8 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SSCOM/A/2020/688761
Mallavarapu Ramakrishna Reddy ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
RII Cell, Block No.-12, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi-110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/01/2022
Date of Decision : 04/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 26/09/2020
First appeal filed on : 29/09/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 12/10/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.9.2020 seeking the following information:-1
"Final normalised marks (Tier-1 examination) of Mallavarapu Ramakrishna Reddy appeared to Phase/7/Selection posts matriculation level bearing roll number 8971005256."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 26.09.2020 stating that the "Recruitment process of Phase-VII/2019 is still undergoing various stages as not yet finalized. As per the provisions mentioned in the concerned notice, marks shall only be disclosed after declaration of results of all categories of posts advertised under Phase-VII/2019. Final result will be declared by the concerned Regional Office to which the post belongs. You are therefore requested to check the website of the concerned Regional office regularly for the latest updates and information on various posts."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.9.2020. FAA's order dated 12.10.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Vinesh Kumar, US (RHQ) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that SSC is declaring the normalised marks of CGL and CHSL within a few days of declaration of the TIER-1 results then what is the issue with the disclosure of the normalised marks in the instant case. He further harped on timeline pf the averred examination and stated that the exam was notified in August 2019, TIER-1 exam conducted in Oct, 2019 and the result was declared in Feb 2020 and till date the candidates are waiting for the normalised marks.
The CPIO relied on the contents of his written submissions, extract of which is reproduced hereunder:
"3. As per the procedure of Selection Post recruitment, it is submitted that after declaration of Result of Computer Based Examination (CBE) by fixing a cut-
off, scrutiny of documents/Document Verification are carried out. Scores/marks of the candidates are not disclosed at these stages. The Marks/Scores of the 2 candidates whose names are in the Select List are declared at the time of Post- category-wise final result which is uploaded by the concerned Regional Office(s) on it's website whereas individual marks/scores of all the candidates who have appeared in the examination are declared only after declaration of entire Results of all Post categories of the complete examination.
4. The case of Shri Mallavarapu Ramakrishna Reddy is related to Phase VII/Selection Post Examination wherein there are 224 categories of Posts and out of which presently results of around 201 posts have already been declared by Regional Office(s) of Commission on it's website. Further, result of remaining categories of Posts are under process with the Commission and as per Para 15(o) of the Notice of Phase VII it is mentioned that "Scores/ Marks of the candidates will only be disclosed/ made available on the website of the concerned Regional/ Sub-Regional Offices at the time of declaration of Final Result for the particular Category of post" and since common candidates are appearing in various posts hence Marks/Scores will be declared after the declaration of Final Result of all categories of Posts advertised in Phase VII."
The CPIO further attempted to clarify the reasons for the inordinate delay caused in the declaration of the final results of Phase VII.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and after hearing the submissions of the CPIO finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter as the result of Phase VII Examination is under finalisation process yet. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that there has been no denial of the information by the CPIO per se but only indication of the information to be disseminated in public domain after completion of the selection process as was informed to the candidates in the examination notice.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4