Central Information Commission
Mrmangat Singh Tyagi vs Staff Selection Commission on 1 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003752/SB
Dated 04.01.2016
Appellant : Shri Mangat Singh Tyagi,
NCR, Bankhanda,
Post - Khas,
Distt. Hapur245001.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Staff Selection Commission,
2123, Lowther Road,
Allahabad211002.
Date of Hearing : 01.01.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.12.2013
CPIO replied on : 30.12.2013
First Appeal filed on : 18.01.2014
Second appeal filed on : 21.03.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Mangat Singh Tyagi filed an application dated 18.12.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information on four points pertaining to the Constable (GD) 1 Examination, 2012 including (i) reasons for delay in selection of Shri Sandeep Kumar despite his obtaining 68 marks, (ii) information on increase in vacancies from 49800 and (iii) intimate the revised vacancy position.
2. The appellant filed the present appeal dated 21.03.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO did not reply within 30 days and that the FAA did not respond to his appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Mangat Singh Tyagi was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Vijay Shukla, CPIO, SSC attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 30.12.2013 that the marks obtained by him (68) in Constable Examination, 2012 was less than the marks (75) of the last selected candidate in general category for the UP State. The respondent further submitted the appellant has also been informed vide letter dated 30.12.2015 that increase/decrease in vacancies are mentioned in the write up of the results which is in public domain and also available on the website of the SSC. Decision:
5. The Commission observes that information sought by the appellant has been provided by the respondent. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. 2
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3