Central Information Commission
Gaurav Gupta vs Department Of Posts on 4 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2015/000085
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2015/000086
Complainant: Gaurav Gupta,
H.No.-128, Kailashpuri,
Bikaner, Rajasthan-334001.
Respondents: 1. Central Public Information Officer
Asstt. Dir. (Rectt.),
M/o Communication & I.T.,
Deptt. of Posts,
O/o The Chief Postmaster General,
Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-302007.
2. Central Public Information Officer
Asstt. Dir. Genl. (DE),
M/o Communication & I.T.,
Deptt. of Posts. Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 23.03.2017
Dated of Decision: 23.03.2017
ORDER
Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2015/000085 Facts:
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 24.01.2015 seeking information on 7 points regarding answer key of written exam of PA/SA 2014 viz. (i) Whether answer key was prepared by the expert committee, if yes, detail of expert committee, (ii) Material based on which answer key was prepared, (iii) Reasons for changing the answers of two questions (Q. no. 33 and 86 of set PHIRJ-13 and Q. no. 67 of set PHIRJ-13), etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 16.02.2015. The first appeal and the FAA order are not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 13.03.2015 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him. Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2015/000086
3. The complainant filed RTI application dated 24.01.2015 seeking information on 9 points regarding Postal Assistant Exam-2014 viz. (i) Marks obtained by him in 2nd paper (typing test) of postal assistant exam-2014 vide Roll no. 281730100196, (ii) Evaluation sheets of both data entry and typing test, (iii) OMR sheet, (iv) Copy of waitlisted candidates etc.
4. The CPIO responded on 16.02.2015. The first appeal and the FAA order are not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 13.03.2015 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him. Hearing:
5. The complainant did not participate in the hearing. The respondent no. 1 participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent no. 2 participated in the hearing through his representative in person.
6. The respondent no. 1 stated that the information sought by the appellant was not available in their record at the time of receipt of his RTI application.
7. The respondent no. 1 further stated that the relevant record pertaining to point nos. 1 to 3 had not been received from Postal Directorate at New Delhi and that is why they did not supply the information.
8. The respondent no. 1 also stated that the information on point nos. 6, 7 and 9 are not available in material form.
9. The representative (Krishna Kumar Gupta, A.S.O.) of respondent no. 2 was not able to explain anything at all.
Discussion/ observation:
10. The respondent no. 1 should transfer his RTI application under intimation to the complainant to the Postal Directorate at New Delhi within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. No information has been provided to the complainant though almost 2 years have since been elapsed.
12. The representative of respondent no. 2 has not been able to explain anything.
Decision:
13. The respondent no. 1 is directed to take action as per para 10 above.
14. The CPIO, Dept. of Post is directed to be personally present before the Commission to explain his case on 07.04.2017 at 11:15 A.M. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Sd./-
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy Sd./-
(S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar Adjunct Order dated 07.04.2017 Hearing:
1. The instant matter was heard on 23.03.2017. The matter is listed today for compliance of this Commission's order dated 23.03.2017.
2. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
3. The respondent apologized for the incomplete and evasive reply and also for not being able to explain correctly during the previous hearing.
4. The respondent stated that there was no expert committee for answer key as contended by the complainant. The examination process was dealt with by an independent agency named M/s CMC Ltd. After the examination, comments on the draft answer keys were invited on internet. Thereafter, M/s CMC Ltd.
revised the answers of two questions. For another question, since it was found to be wrongly drafted, it allotted equal marks to all the candidates. Discussion/ observation:
5. The order dated 23.03.2017 has been complied with by the respondent.
6. The respondent should give a revised reply to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to take action as per para 6 above.
8. The show cause is dropped.
9. The CPIO is advised to be cautious in future and ensure that the RTI applications are dealt with due seriousness and the correct information is provided within the stipulated period of time.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The complaints are disposed of. A copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C.Sharma) Dy. Registrar