Central Information Commission
Pawan Kumar Nagar vs India Meteorological Department on 8 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/IMETD/A/2017/608120
Pawan Kumar Nagar v. PIO, Indian Meteorological Department
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 17.08.2017, CPIO reply -Nil, FAO - Nil, Second appeal filed on
23.11.2017, Hearing on 01.02.2018;
Proceedings on 01.02.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by ACPIO. Mr
Aditya Shankar. Directions and Show Cause issued.
Proceedings on 08.03.2018: Appellant present from NIC Baran, Public Authority represented by
CPIO Smt. Neetha K. Gopal, Scientist 'E' and Mr. Aditya Shankar, ACPIO at CIC;
Date of Decision - 08.03.2018: Disposed of with directions and compensation awarded.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. Appellant sought the information regarding recruitment of Scientific Assistant, whether B.E./B. Tech in computer science (4 year degree course) with (10 plus 2 maths) is allowed for this post, if not allowed then please justify why a B.E./B. Tech (Computer Science) student not allowed for this well reputed post even basic criterion fulfilled and even also most of scientists are engineers and engineering syllabus is not inferior to the B.Sc. syllabus. Since there was no response from the public authorities the appellant filed a second appeal before this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 02.02.2018:
2. Mr. Aditya Shankar, ACPIO submitted that the RTI application was received by their office on 16.01.2018 though the RTI was filed through online portal on 17.08.2017. He also stated that the information sought by the appellant was sought in nature of clarification and claimed that the appellant was responded that candidates with B.Tech in Computer Science were eligible for the post of Scientific Assistant. However, there is no record of response either with the appellant or this Commission.
3. The Commission directs Mr. Aditya Shankar, ACPIO to furnish point-wise reply to the appellant, within five days of receipt of this order.
4. The commission directs Ms. Neetha K. Gopal, CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon her for not furnishing information to the appellant.
5. The CPIO is directed to send her explanation, before 08.03.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on 08.03.2018.
CIC/IMETD/A/2017/608120 Page 1 Decision :
3. Smt. Neetha K. Gopal in her written explanation dated 05.02.2018, submitted as under:
"In the consequence of a Notification bearing number F. No. 3-1/2017-P&P-I in relation to the recruitment of 1102 Scientific Assistants in India Meteorological Department was uploaded on the website of Staff Selection Commission on 18.07.2017, a large number of online RTI Requests containing the queries about the eligibility in regards to educational qualifications have been received in this office (approximately 1,000 in the space of three months), therefore, the matter was brought to the notice of the Establishment Division of this office which is the responsible authority for this recruitment process. As a result, India Meteorological Department subsequently uploaded a Clarification dated 04.08.2017 on the website of Staff Selection Commission in connection with the Minimum Essential Educational Qualifications required for the post of Scientific Assistant.
With reference to the online Request bearing No. IMETD/R/2017/80486, I hereby submitted that this request was received on 16.01.2018 as transfer under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 was responded on 18.01.2018.
The appellant was not satisfied with this reply and preferred first appeal before FAA, the FAA upheld the decision of CPIO and added that the information regarding educational qualification required for the post of Scientific Assistant had already been uploaded on the website of Staff Selection Commission through the Notifications dated 18.07.2017 and 04.08.2017 respectively.
In view of this, the submissions made by Sh. Aditya Shankar Shrivastava, meteorologist - B (Vigilance) & ACPIO who attended this hearing on behalf of me on 01.02.2018 about date of receipt of the RTI application is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, the computer generated copy duly signed by the concerned officer is enclosed herewith for your kind conference. I also request in your kind honour that I am the Scientist, possessing Scientific background and new to the holding the responsibility of CPIO will take time to know how the modus operandi of RTI Requests and Appeal, therefore I may please be forgiven if anything went wrong in the course of dealing this request. In addition to this I promise you I will strictly comply on your directions in this case and also in future."
4. Smt.Neetha K. Gopal has explained that by the time the RTI application was filed, the authorities were not clear regarding the eligibility of B.Tech candidates. A clarification uploaded by the public authority says that any graduate with 3 years' experience will be eligible. The so called clarification has created much more number of doubts regarding 4 year graduation viz., B.Tech/B.E. Smt. Neetha K. Gopal says that the authorities could decide recently CIC/IMETD/A/2017/608120 Page 2 not to allow B.Tech graduates for the position of Scientific Assistant. The Commission finds that the public authority has a statutory obligation under section 4(1)(b) to specifically state which graduate will be eligible for the post of Scientific Assistant at the time of inviting applications. Ms. Neetha K. Gopal stated that the clarification about ineligibility of technical graduates was published in Staff Selection Commission's website recently on August 4, 2017. In view of the absence of clarification with the public authority, the CPIO could not provide any clarificatory information to the appellant. The Commission would like to state that the rejection of the information under the pretext that it does not fall under the category of section 2(f) is wrong. They have a duty to publish the eligibility criteria. Because the department left such an important aspect in total ambiguity, hundreds of applicants like this appellant have suffered a lot and most of the technical graduates have unnecessarily applied. They have also collected the fee from each and every candidate.
5. The Commission is convinced with the explanation offered by Ms. Neetha K. Gopal that she could not provide clarification because she did not had it, however, the public authority is liable for keeping thousands of candidates in doubt and suspense. The Commission directs the public authority to pay Rs. 1,000/- compensation to the appellant in this case for harassing him without giving clarification.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/IMETD/A/2017/608120 Page 3