Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 1 November, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/DSSSB/A/2017/195110
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2017
Date of Interim Decision : 20.06.2017
Date of Final Decision : 30.10.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amit Kumar
Respondent : Nodal Officer-Legal/RTI Cell
DSSSB, GNCTD
Through: Sh. B P Misra, Dy. Secy.
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.09.2016
PIO replied on : 21.10.2016
First Appeal filed on : 10.11.2016
First Appellate Order on : 01.12.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 26.12.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 01.09.2016 addressed to CPIO, DSSSB, the appellant sought following information:-
1. That the Post code 109 /12 & 07/2013 both TGT Female (Hindi), Roll no. 45000917, 45000555, 45000774, 45000649, 45000536, 45000456 are not in the list uploaded by the Board, from where they are selected when their roll nos. and marks are not shown in the list having all appeared candidates roll nos. and marks nor they are in any other lists uploaded by the board. They got how many marks kindly send the copy of that particular page having their marks.
2. Result Notice No. 40 for the Post Code 07/2013, TGT (Hindi) Female, Dated 18/07/2016 in which these following candidates are provisionally selected:- 45100576, 45100570, 45100213, 45000649, 45100572, 45100303, 45100566, 45100149, 45100707, 45100084, 45100251, 45000536, 45000456, 45100069, 45100345, 45100560, 45100463. They got how many marks kindly send the copy of that particular page on which their marks have been shown.
3. In continuation of Result Notice no. 40, Result Notice no. 61 for the post code -07/13, TGT(Hindi) Female dated 19.08.2016 was uploaded in which these roll nos- 45000323, 45000682, 4500034, 45000947, 45001052 are of post code 109/2 but they are selected under post code 07/2013, under which formula these candidates did not even fill the form for the post code 07/2013.
4. How many writs in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are pending on the issue that consider the candidates having essential qualification after cut-off date, i.e. CTET qualified after cut off date, against the board?
5. How many matters are pending in CAT on the above mentioned issue that consider the candidates having essential qualification after cut-off date, i.e. CTET qualified after Cut-off Date, against the board.
The CPIO, Dy. Secretary (I.Cell) furnished the information on point nos. 1 to 3 and rest transferred to the Legal cell of DSSSB. The PIO, Legal, DSSSB, replied on point nos. 4 & 5 stated that as per online records available, such information is not available in compiled form. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply vide letter dated 01.12.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties appeared during the hearing. The appellant represented by his lawyer states that his wife appeared for the examination of TGT(Hindi).It was alleged that she was not selected for the post and was a victim of manipulation of the list of finally selected candidates. The Respondent states that the examination was conducted and some people were given two admit cards against two post codes, because of difference of particulars of candidates. The candidates were allowed to take the examination while the other card was deposited back after the examination. Marksheet was prepared on the basis of admit card against which the examination was taken and not against the second post code. Some candidates had approached the CAT challenging the cancellation of their candidature due to discrepancy in filling of the application form. The Hon'ble CAT had allowed to provisionally appear in the examination but the marks were to be disclosed only after finalisation of the CAT proceedings. The candidates who succeeded in the proceedings before CAT were also included in the result which was prepared mark list wise and post code wise.
Interim Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that since submissions of both the parties are not detailed enough nor do they cover the above aspects as orally submitted during the hearing, it is imperative that a detailed note from both parties be placed for proper assessment of the facts of the case.
Hence the Commission directs the Appellant to submit a brief synopsis of not more than 2 pages, highlighting their queries and allegations about discrepancies in the list of selected candidates, by 30th June 2017, with a copy marked to the Respondents. The Respondent shall file their response to the submissions within 10 days thereafter clearly stating as to how the discrepancy in the mark list of selected candidates occurred. The Respondent/PIO's submissions shall also cover the aspects of CAT case as well as the double admit cards issued to candidates etc. Order reserved.
Final Decision:
Pursuant to the orders of the Commission, the appellant has sent a two page synopsis dated 26.06.2017. Perusal of the same reveals as follows:
"....Appellant/Applicant filed an RTI before the CPIO, DSSSB Delhi seeking information with regard to Roll Nos. 45000917, 45000555. 45000774, 45000649, 45000536, 45000456, 45100576. 45100570, 45100123, 45000649, 45100572, 45100303. 45100566, 45100149, 45100707, 45100084. 45100251, 45000536, 45000456, 45100069, 45100345. 45100560 & 45100463 who were supposed to be appeared in Post Code No. 109/2012 TGT Female (Hindi) and 07/2013 TGT Female (Hindi) under Advertisement No. 02/2012 and 01/2013 respectively, whereas marks of these candidates were neither in common list nor under Post Code No. 109/2012 nor 07/2013 uploaded nor any corrigendum or notice or result or circular was ever issued as to why marks of these candidates were not uploaded. When the Appellant asked about these roll nos. then the answering authority i.e. DSSSB replied that there was Court cases in some of the roll numbers therefore their marks were not uploaded whereas their reply dated 13.06.2017 received on 15.06.2017 is under cloud because these candidates had never appeared either in 109/2012 or 07/2013. Apart from it, reply dated 13.06.2017 is speaks about some of the roll numbers not about all roll numbers mentioned hereinabove. The Respondent uploaded Result No. 40 dated 18.07.2016 on its official website whereas common list, candidates who appeared under Post Code No. 109/2012 and 07/2013 were uploaded on 24.11.2015 on it official website. The common question which arises for this commission kind consideration as to when CAT stay was vacated and Respondents were directed to consider their candidatures irrespective their identity or incomplete answer sheet. The DSSSB / Respondents is specifically mentioned in Para A of the Advertisements as to deficiency or irregularities wilt be treated as invalid and their form / application would be summarily rejected. Therefore, their candidature ought to be treated as invalid or summarily rejected despite issuing one or two admit cards to them. Appellant/Applicant asked as to following Roll Nos. 45000323, 45000682, 4500034, 45000947 and 45001052 who appeared only in Post Code No. 109/2012, which is evident from the lists uploaded by the Respondents, but they got selected under Post Code No. 07/2013. They were neither in common lists nor in lists issued/uploaded for Post Code No. 07/2013. On 05.10.2016, the DSSSB/Respondents replied to Point No. 1 & 2 stating that particulars of abovementioned candidates cannot be provided being third party information whereas in second sentence respondents mentioned that marks of above mentioned candidates have already been uploaded on the official website although no such list has ever been uploaded by the Respondent which held Respondents guilty to make false statements before the Hon'ble CIC and also constrain the Commission to impose an exemplary costs.
Appellant/ Applicant as to how many cases are pending in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as in Hon'ble CAT who did not have C-TET qualification on the cut-off date and their candidatures was considered by the answering respondents on its own or under the direction of the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble CAT. These two RTJ questions are still unanswered. The Respondents replied to Point No. 3 with respect to some of the candidates not all of the candidates mentioned hereinabove which makes the answer vague. Respondents have not provided court case numbers, date of orders and other particulars which substantiates claim of the Respondents..."
The Respondent has also placed a comprehensive reply dated 13.06.2017, copy whereof has been marked to the appellant. This document was received on 16.06.2017 in the Commission but did not form part of the order dated 20.06.2017, since the same was not tagged with the file on the date of hearing. Perusal of the said letter dated 13.06.2017 reveals that information about marks obtained by all the candidates whose roll numbers had been mentioned by the appellant, as available, have been provided by the Respondent answering to the appellant.
In view of the clear cut facts as stated by the Respondent vide response dated 13.06.2017, the Commission is unable to comprehend the exact cause of action sought to be remedied by the appellant in this case. The information about the marks obtained by the various candidates who had taken the TGT Examination has been clearly furnished by the Respondent. Respondents have also clarified that the delay in declaration of the result was on account of the legal proceedings pending before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. In so far as the synopsis submitted by the appellant is concerned, it indicates the grievance of the appellant, remedy whereof does not lie before this Commission. Nowhere has the appellant made out a case that information has been denied by the Respondent. Information as available has undeniably been furnished to him. Hence, there arises no further cause of action to be adjudicated upon. The Commission hereby directs a closure of this case and that the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
AMIT KUMAR Nodal Officer - Legal / RTI Cell, Advocate, 317, C. K. Delhi Subordinate Services Dapthari, Lawyers Selection Board (Government Chambers, Supreme Court of of NCT of Delhi), Legal
India, New Delhi-110001. Branch, FC-18, Institutional Delhi,New Delhi Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-
110092.
First Appellate Authority under RTI Office of the Secretary & FAA, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Government of NCT of Delhi), Legal Branch, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-
110092.