Central Information Commission
Shri Surendra Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 6 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01255 dated 1.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Surendra Kumar
Respondent - Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Facts:
By an application of 30.3.07, Shri Surendra Kumar of Pitampura, Delhi applied to Shri V. K. Aggarwal, CPIO, SSC on recruitment of SC/ST/OBC candidates as below:
"Following information may please be supplied: -
(A) Number of candidates recruited year wise for various post (whose result declared after 2.7.1997). Since 1997 to March 2007 in following format and number of candidates who passed the various exams without relaxation and finally selected by SSC for appointment.
Format for supplying the information is given in Annexure-1. The information may please be supplied in format (Annexure-1) for years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007 (till March), the list of exams given in the format. In addition to examinations mentioned in Anneuxre-1, if any other examination has been conducted by UPSC for direct recruitment during year from 1997 to March 2007, the information may also be supplied in format given in Annxure-1.
(B) SSC also conducts the Limited Departmental competitive Examination for promotion for various posts of various departments. The details of numbers of candidates selected on the basis of such examination may please furnished in the format (Annexure-II) for the period from July 1997 to March 2007.
(C) SC, St and OBC Candidates selected on the merit basis (Without relaxation) will occupy general point in the roster, whether the names of such candidates has been informed to the concerned department specifically mentioning that those particulars candidates belongs to SC/St/ OBC category qualified the exam on merit basis not on relaxed standard? (1) If names has been informed in case of direct recruitments to various department as requested in above 'C'. The name of examination, post, category, 1 name of candidates may please be supplied for a period July 1997 to Marc 2007 in format Annexure-II. (2) Similar information as requested in C (1) above may also be supplied for candidates selected on the basis of limited departmental competitive examination or a period July 1997 to March 2007 in Annexure-II.
(D) In case names of such reserved category candidates who passed the examination for direct recruitment and limited departmental competitive examination on their merit (without availing any relaxation) not informed to concerned department that they have passed the exam on their merit. Such candidates will be adjusted on reserved points in the roster and it will be against the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab and J. C. Malik vs. Ministry of Railways. It will be contrary to instruction issued by DOP&T vide Office Memorandum No. 36012/2/96-Restt (Res) dated 2.7.1997 and dated 11.7.2002. In view of above following may please be furnished.
(1) Reason for not intimating the names of reserved category candidate who have passed the examination for direct recruitment and limit departmental competitive examination on their own merit (without availing any relaxation) to the concerned department. (2) Name and designation of officials responsible for this act of omission in various exams during year 1997 to 2007, may please be intimated (3) In present situation/ circumstances what remedial action can be taken so that reserved candidates who passed the exam on own merit shall occupy general point, not the reserve points.
(E) The Govt. intentions are very clear, as Govt, wants to increase the representation of SC, ST and OBC category beyond fixed percentage i.e. reserve candidates who qualify the exam on the basis of their own merits will be adjusted against unreserved points (General point) and who will qualify the exam on basis of relaxed standard, they will occupy the reserve points as per DOP&T OM dated 2.7.1997. there are very much chances that some of SSC official who does not want that number of reserve category candidates (SC/ST/OBC) shall go beyond 50% even if they qualify the examination on their own merit without availing any relaxation, whatever may be the Govt. instructions or 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, they will peruse their own agenda by will full act of omission.
As per DOP&AR OM No. 36011/7/80-Estt (SCT) dated 1.11.80 OM No. 41016/4/93-Est (SCT) dated 15.3.1993 is clearly instructed that "Glaring instances of discrimination or deliberate infraction of orders relating to reservation and concessions in favour of SC/ST in any office or establishment should immediately brought to notice of appropriate authority for suitable action. Ministries/ department/ Authorities should ensure that whenever the cases of such nature are brought to their notice of appropriate authorities, suitable action is also taken promptly. It is further instructed that suitable action initiated against officials for deliberate negligence and lapses in the matter of following reservation and other orders relating to SC/ST.
(1) In view of above DOP&T OM dated 1.11.80 and 15.3.93, action proposed against official responsible for deliberate infraction of order related to reservation and concession in favour of SC/ST by way of willful omission may please be intimated.
(2) Clear instruction is given in above DOP&T OM dated 1.11.80 and 15.3.2007 for immediate action against erring officials. Time frame for taking the action may please be intimated."
To this he initially received a response on 3.5.07 from Shri V.K. Aggarwal US who had received the letter on 11.4.07 but refusing the information u/s 7(9) of the Act, as follows:
"SSC has to conduct 12 open and 3 Dep't. examinations every year in which nearly 15 to 20 lakh candidates appear every year. The Commission is required to declare the results of these examinations within the fixed time frame fixed by Govt. of India. In view of the limited man power and resources at the disposal of the Commission, it is not found feasible to accede to your request to provide the required information asked by you under sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Shri Surendra Kumar then moved a first appeal on 12.5.07 by which time it appears that he had not received the response. However, in his order of 23.5.07 Shri Aggarwal, replying once more, informed appellant Shri Surendra Kumar as follows:
"The required information is being collected. You will be informed immediately, just after the receiving the required information."3
There was, however, no follow up leading to a second RTI request from Shri Surendra Kumar dated 7.8.07 urging Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, CPIO to supply "the complete and correct information immediately. In case I do not receive complete and correct information or satisfactory reply within 15 days of issue of this letter then I will be constrained to appear before Central Information Commission." To this Shri V.K. Aggarwal in his letter of 21.8.07 sent a more detailed reply, as follows :
"(A) to (C) In this connection, it may be mentioned that the Commission generally conducts 12 Open Competitive examinations and 03 limited Departmental Examinations every year for making recruitment to various posts meaning thereby, that you have asked for the data pertaining to about 150 examinations conducted by the Commission during last 10 years i.e. from July 1997 to March, 2007. Since, it is an enormous task, which requires a lot of labour, manpower and time, it is not feasible for the Commission to provide the same under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. So far as point 'D' of your application is concerned, it is informed that while nominating the candidates belonging to reserved category, who qualify the examination at General Standard, the Commission invariably, makes a mention to this effect in the nomination letter.
4. As regards Point 'E' of your application, it is informed that it is the responsibility of the Cadre Controlling Authority to ensure that the vacancies reserved for SC/ST/OBC etc. are indicated / intimated to the recruiting agency i.e. Staff Selection Commission. In so far as SSC is concerned, it fills up the vacancies reported by the indenting Departments."
However, because this reply does not answer the request question wise in accord with the formats annexed to the application and referred to in the quotation above, and also pleads exemption from disclosure, Shri Surendra Kumar has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"1) PIO (HQ) Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secretary SSC and Shri L. Vishwanathan, Director & Appellate Authority SSC may please be directed to supply all the information within reasonable time free of cost.4
2) Penalty may be imposed on PIO u/s 20(1) for denying the information after deciding for supply of information after passage of three months with motive to harass the applicant."
3) Disciplinary action may be recommended against PIO and Appellate Authority u/s 20(2) or deliberately violating the provision of RTI Act, 2005 in spite of bring out the provision in their knowledge vide letter dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure -IV) and repeatedly requesting for supply of the information."
The appeal was heard on 21.10.09. The following are present:
Respondent Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. / FAA Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, US(A) We have in the meantime received a FAX letter dated 31.12.08 also from appellant Shri Surendra Kumar in which he has submitted as follows:
"I have clearly brought out the deficiencies in information supplied by the PIO and Appellate Authority of Staff Selection Commission in my appeal before Hon'ble CIC. Staff Selection Commission has not furnished complete and correct information in spite of clearly bringing out the deficiency / in adequacy in their information through various letters. Staff Selection Commission has not supplied the copies of relevant letters as well information requested in my RTI application. I have clearly brought out all these points to the notice of CIC through my appeal. In absence of information the applicant is not able to know whether Staff Selection Commission is following the instructions issued by their own Ministry i.e. Ministry of Personnel and Pension."
Shri Surendra Kumar has opted not to be present. Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. & F.A.A. submitted that what appellant has asked for is in fact details of information for ten years on all the examinations conducted by the SSC. She has invited our attention to the questionnaire format provided by appellant Shri Surendra Kumar, attached with his application. The details that appellant Shri Surendra Kumar has sought are, therefore, as follows in the desired format:
5FORMAT FOR INFORMATION OF CANDIDATES BELONGING TO SC/ST/OBC CATEGORY WHO HAS BEEN SELECTED ON THEIR OWN MERIT WITHOUT RELAXATION (FROM JULY 1997 TO MARCH 2007) Sr. Name of Name of Name of Name of Name, Letter No. Examination (Post SC Candidates OBC address, No. and year) candidates candidates and tel/fax vide No. of which authority to details whom were information sent.
were sent.
1 UD Grade Ltd.
Departmental Examination 2 Grade 'C' Steno Ltd. Departmental Examination 3 Clerk Grade (For Group 'D' staff only) examination.
Note: If any other exam in addition to above exam has been conducted by SSC from July 2007 to March 2007, information may please be supplied in the format.
FORMAT FOR SUPPLYING THE INFORMATION (DIRECT RECRUITMENT) AND LIMITED DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION (FROM JULY 1997 TO MARCH 2007-3-29) Sr Name of Post / Total No. No. No. of ST No. of No. of No. No. . Exam. candidat of SC candidat OBC SC of ST of ST N e candi e candidat candid candi candi o. selected dates selected e ates dates date through selec in Quota selected selecte on s on Exam ted in (wit in quota d on their their General quota relaxatio (with their merit merit & with n) relaxatio recruit (with / with reserved relax n) ment- out out category ation) without relax relax relaxati ation) ation on) .
1 Combined Graduate level examination 2 Junior Engineer (Civil & Electrical) Examination 3 Junior Hindi Translator Examination 4 Combined Metric level Examination 6 5 Investigator Examination 6 Data Entry Operator Examination 7 CPO's Sub Inspector Examination 8 Tax Assistant Examination 9 SO Commercial Audit Examination 10 SO (Audit Examination) Note: Any other Exam in addition to above has been conducted by SSC from July 1997 to March, 2007, information may please be supplied in the format."
DS explained that the information has not been retained in this form and will now have to be compiled, even if available, which in her view was also doubtful. Ms. Gayatri Sharma went on to submit that after coming into force of the RTI Act 2005 and subsequent decisions by this Commission, the SSC is taking pains to keep a separate record of successful SC/ST candidates together with those who have qualified in the open examination and those who have qualified as a result of reservation. This is in response to the public demand that has been assessed through responses to RTI applications. Such information, however, is not held for previous years.
DECISION NOTICE Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
"Sec.7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought 1 unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
As emphasized above, all information sought has to be provided in the form in which it is sought. However, there is allowance available to a CPIO under certain conditions, which do not, however, amount to exemption from disclosure.
1Emphasis added 7 All such information, as is held by a public authority, is accessible under the Right to Information as defined in sec. 2(j) of the Act. For the public authority to take the plea that because the task is enormous, it will not provide the information u/s 7(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is, therefore, misplaced. We have, however, noted the plea of respondents that the information held by them on this account is only limited. However, such information, as is held, even were it to require compilation will require to be provided to an applicant. The steps initiated by the SSC in consequence of the RTI Act are welcome and in the normal course it was open to the public authority to seek the costs of compiling the information sought from the applicant u/s 7(3) of the RTI Act. This allowance, however, stands forfeited u/s 7(6) of the Act, which requires that "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1)".
In consequence of the above, therefore, such information, as is held by the SSC and sought by the applicant Shri Surendra Kumar will be provided to him within 30 working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice. If the information stands destroyed or is not available for any other reason, these reasons will have to be clearly spelt out in the response provided to appellant Shri Surendra Kumar. This is a clear case indicating the need for compliance with sec. 4(1) sub sections (a) & (b) of the RTI Act. It is our hope, therefore, that the SSC will take the lead in ensuring suo moto disclosure of such information under this section of the RTI Act so as to facilitate servicing the Act by the SSC in future.
On the question of penalty we have come to the conclusion that since responses to the applications have been given in time and there is no ground for suspicion that misleading information has been 'knowingly' given, there can be no penalty.
8Reserved in the hearing to enable us to study the appeal further in the context of the RTI mandate, and its implications for the administration of the SSC, the above decision is announced in open chamber on this sixth day of January, 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6.1.2009 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6.1.2009 9