Central Information Commission
Sh. Shiva Nand Dani, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, ... vs Bhilai Steel Plant on 19 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.5049/IC(A)/2010
F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2009/000790, CIC/MA/A/2009/000791
CIC/MA/A/2009/000792, CIC/MA/A/2009/000793
CIC/MA/A/2009/000795, CIC/MA/A/2009/000796
CIC/MA/A/2009/000797, CIC/MA/A/2009/000798
CIC/MA/A/2009/000803, CIC/MA/A/2009/000808
CIC/MA/A/2009/000809, CIC/MA/A/2009/000811
CIC/MA/A/2009/000812, CIC/MA/A/2009/000813 &
CIC/MA/A/2009/000939
Dated, the 19th January, 2010
Name of the Appellant: 1. Sh. Shiva Nand Dani
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
3. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
4. Sh. V. Shervar
5. Sh. Sharad Chandra Patro
6. Smt. Nalini Barale
7. Smt. S.K. Chhitawar
8. Smt. Radha Rani Sinha
9. Sh. Lekhram Barchiha
10. Sh. Pardeep Kumar
11. Sh. Vinod Das
12. Smt. Aruna Devendra
13. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Dubey
14. Smt. Deepa Choubey
15. Sh. Alok Agrawal
Name of the Public Authority: Bhilai Steel Plant
i
Facts:
1. The aforementioned appeals were scheduled for hearing on 15th and 18th January 2010. The appellant, Shri. Pardeep Kumar and the CPIO along with other officers were present on 18/1/2010.
i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1
2. The appellants have stated that in an internal selection process for promotion of non-executives to executive cadre in the post of Junior Officer (JO), as many as 3606 candidates appeared for departmental written examination. Of these, 1466 candidates were declared successful in the written examination. Finally, only 360 candidates were selected for promotion of Jr. Officers, on the basis of performance in personal interview, written test, service records, etc. Some of the un-successful candidates have alleged irregularities in conduct of the selection process.
3. In this backdrop, a number of appellants (candidates), through their RTI applications, have sought for information relating to the marks awarded to them under different parameters, including the copies of OMR sheets and cut off marks, ACR grades, details of the members of the Selection Committee, etc.
4. The CPIO and the Appellate Authority have replied and furnished partial information. Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's responses, the appellants have submitted separate appeals before the Commission, which are examined together, since the information sought for is identical in almost all the appeals.
5. The copies of OMR sheets and model answers have not been provided because the private Agency, which conducted the written examination, have stated that the records being old, over one year, are not maintained and therefore it cannot be furnished. Moreover, the private Agency, a third party, has also stated that there was no arrangement between the respondent and the Agency for providing the relevant details, as asked for by the un-successful candidates.
6. The CPIO has also refused to provide the information relating to the ACR grades and minutes of the Selection Committee, on the ground that such information are confidential and that there is no public interest in disclosure of the information.
7. During the hearing, one of the appellant Sh. Pardeep Kumar, who was present, alleged irregularities in the selection process and pleaded for disclosure of complete information relating to the promotion of staff. He also said that the aggrieved candidates have also approached the Court for seeking legal relief in the matter.
8. After a detailed discussion on the issues raised by the appellants, the CPIO submitted as under:
" (i) The JO Selection Process was an internal selection process that was undertaken by all the Units of SAIL during the period September '08 to March '09 for promotion of employees from the Non-Executive to Executive Cadre which involved a written test and interview.2
(ii) After completion of the entire process and declaration of results, we at BSP have received 345 applications under RTI seeking various information. We have disclosed to each individual the marks scored by him/her viz the written test marks, the interview marks, the length of service marks and the total marks. However the copies of the OMR sheets and other records of the written test could not be given as the entire written test procedure had been outsourced to an outside agency by SAIL Corporate Office.
(iii) Although with the disclosure of the marks as stated above, the individual can deduce his ACR marks (the only component of the selection process which has not been disclosed), as per the discussions held on 18/01/2010, we will be disclosing the ACR marks to each of the applicants, who have asked for the same.
(iv) Also we will be publishing on our intranet the list of all the candidates, who qualified for the interview, with their consolidated marks. This work will be completed within 30 days.
(v) It is also understood that some more cases of Bhilai Steel Plant, on the same subject, have been listed for hearing before the Hon. Information Commissioner in the coming months. It is requested that all these cases may also be kindly clubbed together so as to ensure that there is no repetition of cases on the same subject and the valuable time of the Hon. Information Commissioner is not unnecessarily spent.
(vi) Further it also humbly submitted that 219 employees of BSP have filed writ petitions before the CG High Court on this issue."
Decision:
9. The CPIO has assured to furnish the information asked for on the basis of available records, except the information relating to the OMR sheet and model answers which were held by a third party, a private Agency that was appointed by the respondent for conduct of the written examination. The private Agency has clearly stated that there was neither any agreed arrangement with the respondent for disclosing the OMR sheets and other related information pertaining to the conduct of examination nor the records were maintained beyond one year. Hence, it could not be furnished. The respondent is unable to access the records and put in public domain the copies of OMR sheets and other details relating to the conduct of written examination. In view of this, the CPIO's decision is thus justified since the documents asked for is neither held nor controlled by the respondent.
10. As regards disclosure of ACR grades of the information seekers and the minutes of the Selection Committee are concerned, there is no justification for 3 withholding the information, since the selection process is already complete and over. The CPIO is therefore directed to furnish the ACR grades of all those, who have asked for it. The minutes of the selection committee, as per record, should also be put in public domain, as also assured by the CPIO. The information should thus be furnished within one month from the date of issue of this decision. Since the minutes of the selection committee contains a great deal of information asked for by the appellants, it would be possible for them to observe and scrutinize the selection process on the basis of which they could not be considered for promotion.
11. The appellants have already approached the Court, which has full control over the information held by the respondent. It may, therefore, be hoped that they would get the legal relief in the matter. There is, therefore, no justification for agitating and raising the issues, pertaining to alleged irregularities in selection processes, under the provisions of the Act.
12. With these observations, all the appeals are thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Deputy Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Shivanand Dani, Qr. 8-B, Street-16, Sector-7, Bhilai - 490 006 (C.G.)
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Qr. No.1/C Street No.2, Sector-2, Bhilai Nagar, Durg.
(C.G.)
3. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Qr. No.1/6, Street No.2, Sector-8, Bhilaui Nagar, Durg.
4. Sh. V. Shervar, M-48, Padmanabhpur, Durg- 491 001.
5. Sh. Sharad Chandra Patro, E-Pocket/30-D, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.)
6. Smt. Nalini Burade, Qr. No.3A, Street No.8, Sector-8, Bhilai Nagar, Distt.
Durg.
7. Smt. S.K. Chittawar, Plot-33, Phase-6, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 4
8. Smt. Radha Rani Sinha, h. No.721 Phase - 5A, Maitri Nagar, Risali 490 006, Durg.
9. Sh. Lekhram Barchhiha, 71-B, Maitri Vihar, P.O. Supela, Bhilai, dist. Durg.
10. Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Pocket-C, Qr. No.27C, Moroda Sector, Bhilai, Dist Durg (C.G.)
11. Sh. Vinod Das, Qr. No.12-B, Street-13, Sector-7, Bhilai, Durg Dist. - 490
006.
12. Smt. Aruna Devendra, 75/12 Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg - 490 020.
13. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Dubey, Qr. No.42/A, Ruabandha Sector (BSP), Bhilai, Distt. Durg - 490 006.
14. Smt. Deepa Choubey, Q. No.5/b, Street No.9, Sector-10, Bhilai (C.G.)
15. Sh. Alok Agrawal, M.I.G. - 62, Padmnabhpur Housing Board Colony, Durg (C.G.) - 491 001
16. Smt. Nisha Soni, PIO, Room No.252, 2nd floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai.
17. The Appellate Authority, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai.
5