Central Information Commission
Dr.Dnyaneshwar Arjun Sanap vs Ministry Of Defence on 17 December, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Files No:CIC/LS/A/2012/002382
Appellant : Shri Dnyaneshwar Arjun Sanan
Public Authority : Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Nasik,
Date of hearing : 17.12.2012
Date of Decision : 17.12.2012
FACTS
Heard today dated 17.12.2012. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by Shri V.J. Magar, AGM and Shri Kalyan Chakravarty, Manager..
2. Shri Magar submits that the HAL had invited applications for recruitment of Medical Officers in October, 2011. The appellant was one of the candidates but he was not selected. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 31.1.2012, the appellant had sought information on 09 paras. This was duly responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 24.2.2011. He further submits that the appellant has been given photo copy of the evaluated answer sheet. Besides, he has also been given information about the marks awarded to him in the interview, including the break up thereof, trait wise. The appellant has, however, not been given the marks awarded to other candidates u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
3 In the appeal memo filed before this Commission, the appellant has protested against the non supply of this information. On query from the Commission, as to why the marks awarded to selected candidates could not be provided to the appellant. Shri Magar submits that two candidates have been selected and two other candidates have been kept on the panel. The panel is to be operated when the selected candidates do not join. It is contention of Shri Magar that if this list is disclosed, then there is a possibility of pressure being brought on the management for operating the panel either by way of increasing the vacancies or otherwise.
4. Generally, it has been the view of the Commission that a copy of the select list may be provided to all the candidates but in view of the special circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to disclose this information at this stage. In view of the above, I am constrained to dismiss the appeal. Even so, if the appellant wishes to inspect the file, he is at liberty to request the CPIO and the latter, on receipt of such request, would facilitate inspection of the file by the appellant. The appellant, however, will not be given copies of any documents from the file.
5. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.
( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated. Additional copies of the order shall be supplied on application and payment of fees, as per RTI Act, to the CPIO of the Commission.
(K.L.Das)
Dy Registrar Address of the Parties :-
( l) The AGM(SP) and CPIO, 2) Dr Dnayaneshwar ARjun
Sanan,
HAL, Aircraft Division, 504, M4B, Parijit CHS,
Nasik Division, Nasik, Maha MHADA Colony,
Pratikshanagar, Sion
East, Mumbai 40 00 22.