Central Information Commission
Mr.Harish Kumar Bhalla vs Dena Bank on 16 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000305+000271/17748
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000305+000271
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kr Bhalla
R/o 208, Sant Nagar
East of Kailash
New Delhi-110065.
Respondent : Mr. N. Rama Rao,
PIO & General Manager DENA BANK Dena Corporate Center, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400059 RTI application filed on : 07/07/2011 PIO replied : 08/08/2011 First Appeal : 15/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 03/11/2011 Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2012 Provide the following information regarding promotion from Scale II to Scale III- final result declared on 29.06,2011 Sl. queries Reply A How many posts were declared to be filled for 808 promotion to scale III?
B How many candidates applied for promotion from All Scale II officers who had completed 2 scale II to scale III? years of service in Scale II as on 30.042011 (Total - 895) were Issued halt tickets attend the written test held on 17.042011 C Number of years of service one must put in scale II to 5 years be eligible for promotion to scale III. This time how 2 years many years of service in scale II were required to be eligible for scale III D How many candidates appeared in written test for 685 promotion from Scale II to scale Ill held on 17.04.2011 E How many candidates cleared the written test without 261 candidates had obtained minimum 45% grace marks i.e, when the percentage for passing the or more marks in written test exam was 50%?
f How many more candidates were made eligible when 165 the percentage for passing in written test was reduced to 35%?
G How many candidates were finally promoted to Scale 370 candidates are finally promoted to Scale-
III ? ILL and results of 5 more candidates are kept in sealed cover.
H The distribution of marks for selection under different Parameter Total Marks scored by
heads viz., Annual appraisal, written test, interview, marks the applicant
Page 1 of 3
educational qualifications and my score under each Written test 25 13.5
head and reasons for my rejection. interview 40 13
Qualification 5 5
Average 30 17.70
APA(for last
3 years )
I How many candidates passed written exam in Delhi Without grace marks - 15
region with grace marks and without grace marks and With grace marks - 07
my rank in written exam in Delhi region. Thai: . -22
As regard rank in written exam , it is to
Inform that list of Officers who have
participated iii the written test in order of marks secured by them was circulated vide circular no. 51/13/2001-12 dated 21.05.2011 which is also available in Banks intra-net. The applicant may refer the same. No separate Region wise list was prepared.
J The date of submission of my Annual appraisal by 2008-09:Reporting was done on 05.05.2011 b reporting authority Shri S.K. Malhotra- Senior Sh S. K Malhotra 2009-10 Reporting was Manager for the Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 & done on 05.05.2011 by Shri S. K. Malhotra reporting authority Chief Manager -- Shri Ajay 2010-11 Reporting was done on 10.05.2011 Kumar Mendiratta for the year 2010-11 by Shri A. K. .Mendiratta K The performance appraisal forms which 3 years are 2008-09; 2009-10, 2010-11 considered for promotion to scale III L Copies of my annual appraisal forms for the year Copies of the APA forms or marks each year 2008-09, 2009-10 Submitted by Shri S. K. Malhotra - (given by the Reporting / Reviewing Senior Manager for the years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 Authority ) cannot be parted with since it is and by Shri A.K. Mendiratta -- Chief Manager for confidential-and disclosure of the earns may the year 2010-11 be provided to me have endangering repercussions on the Reviewing / Reporting Authority, hence exempted under Section 8(1) (g) Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete. Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory and not satisfied with the decision of FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Harish Kr Bhalla;
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Ram, AGM (LAW) on behalf of Mr. N. Rama Rao, PIO & General Manager on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Suburban Studio; The Appellant states that he has not received complete information in the following matters: 1- Query (H): The reasons for his rejection have not been given. The Respondent states that there is a minimum qualifying percentage. The PIO is directed to provide the minimum qualifying percentage to the appellant.Page 2 of 3
2- Query (L): The PIO has refused to give the information without quoting any exemption in the RTI Act. Such refusal to give the information is bad in the law and will invite the penal provisions of Section 20(1).
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query (H) & (L) as directed above to the Appellant before 10 April 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3