Central Information Commission
Shri G. Veerabahu vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 18 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2009/00078 & 00614 dated 16-2-2009 & 10-6-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri G. Veerabahu
Respondent: Lok Sabha Secretariat
Decision announced 18.3.'10
FACTS
These are two appeals moved by Shri G. Veerabahu of JNU, New Delhi.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00078 In an application of 11-6-2008 Shri G. Veerabahu applied to the CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking the following information in reference to a representation of 22-4-08 addressed to the Speaker, Lok Sabha:
1. 'Copy of the Note sheet where the Competent Authority's decision was obtained on my representation.
2. Copy of communication of the decision addressed to me, as I have not got any till date.
3. If no action is taken, then reasons for the same along with a copy of the note sheet approved by the Competent Authority.
4. No. of sanctioned posts for Regional Language Simultaneous Interpreter in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Language wise.
5. No. of Vacant posts of Regional Language Simultaneous Interpreter in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Language wise."
To this Shri G. Veerabahu received a response dated 11-7-08 point- wise as follows:
"Point 1, 2 & 3: As per the standard practice in the Hon'ble Speaker's Secretariat, all the matters where no action is to be taken by Hon'ble Speaker or Lok Sabha Secretariat are disposed of by the senior officers of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Point No. 4: One each in Marathi, Tamil, Manipuri, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Assamese, Oriya, Bengali, Nepali, Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada, Maithili, Gujarat, Kashmiri, Konkani, Sindhi, Bodo, Santhali and Dogri.
Point 5: 07 (one each in Gujarati, Kashmiri, Konkani, Sindhi, Bodo, Santhali and Dogri)."1
Aggrieved, however, Shri G. Veerabahu moved an appeal before Shri S.K. Sharma, Addl. Secretary on 17-7-08 arguing that, "I requested for the copy of the note sheet and disposal of the competent authority on my representation. If a Senior Officer has disposed of my representation, then he being competent to do so, I may be provided with his decision and copy of the note sheet. "
In his letter of 25-8-08 Shri S.K. Sharma, Addl. Secretary informed Shri Veerabahu as follows:
"The matter is being looked into and the final decision regarding supply of desired information will be intimated to you shortly.' However, pleading that the stand of Appellate Authority, LS "that it is being looked into and a decision will be informed is merely a delaying tactic", Shri Veerabahu has moved this second appeal before this Commission. with the following prayer:
"I humbly request the Commission to kindly direct Lok Sabha Secretariat to put up my representation for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha Shri Somnath Chatterjee and also to provide me the copy of note sheet and decision on my representation, if the same has already not been done or provide me the same as it claimed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat that my representation ahs been disposed of.
Further, I request the Commission to take suitable action against the officials of Lok Sabha Secretariat for their continuous refusal to implement the RTI Act in letter and spirit.
As my representation to Speaker, LS is regarding employment, non provision of information is violation of Human Rights Act, 1923. Hence my appeal may be considered under section 7 of RTI Act."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00614 In an application of 15-5-09 Shri G. Veerabahu sought the following information from CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat:
"(i) Who is the competent authority to decide the scheme of examination for various appointments in LSS and RSS being conducted by JRC?2
(ii) Provide me with a copy of note sheet wherein the present eligibility criteria was approved by the competent authority for various examinations being conducted by JRC as informed vide letter No. 1 (548)/IC/08 dated 10.11.2008.
(iii) Provide me with the copy of note sheet wherein the scheme of examination approved by the competent authority for Legislative/ Executive/ Protocol/ Research and Reference officers in LSS.
(iv) Contrary to the Advt. 01/2009, the eligibility cut off marks were reduced at a later stage. Provide me with a copy of note sheet wherein the approval of the competent authority was obtained to re-fix the eligibility criteria?
(v) Provide me with the copy of the note sheet wherein the scheme of examination was approved by the competent authority for Simultaneous Interpreter post for Regional Language conducted by JRC from 15.2.2008 to 17.2.2008.
(vi) Designation of the officer who has provided the information that only five candidates have cleared the simultaneous interpretation test conducted by JRC on 17.2.2008 vide letter No. 1 (286)/IC/09 dated 20.4.2009.
(vii) Copy of the approval obtained from competent authority to file review petition on 19.4.2009 on the decision of CIC in the case of CIC/WB/A/2008/00867.
(viii) Copy of the approval obtained from competent authority to provide marks scored by 05 selected candidates instead of 08 regional language candidates as ordered by CIC?
(ix) Copy of the approval obtained from competent authority to provide marks scored by 03 non selected candidates instead of 08 regional language candidates as ordered by CIC?
(x) Why was the other details of the candidates and copy of the Tamil translation was not provided as ordered by CIC as they are not included for review in the review petition?"
In this Shri Veerabahu pleaded that this was a case concerning human rights and hence the application was submitted "under Section 7 (1)". However, not having received a response till that date, on 26-5-09 i.e. within 10 days of submitting the original application, Shri G. Veerabahu moved an appeal before Appellate Authority Shri N.K. Sapra, Addl. Secretary, Lok Sabha pleading as follows:
"JRC has filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that scheme of examination is approved by the Secretary Generals of both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. However, contradictory to 3 Advt. 01/2009, the qualifying marks have been reduced during the selection process.
I am on legal as well as information battle with JRC hence this information is most important as it affects my meaningful livelihood of employment in Group 'A' post Therefore, I appeal to you to provide me the information as requested within 72 hours on receipt of my appeal."
Shri G. Veerabahu has then moved a second appeal before us on 1-6- 09 with the following prayer:
"Copy of the note sheets wherein the approval of competent authority to approve the scheme of examination conducted by Joint Recruitment Cell, Lok Sabha Secretariat as requested and approval of competent authority to file review petition on the CIC's decision and later on provide marks scored by selected candidates.
In a reply affidavit filed in High Court of Delhi, Joint Recruitment Cell, Lok Sabha Secretariat have stated that scheme of examination is approved before the exam is announced. On contrary they have relaxed eligibility criteria in one exam. I have appeared in one of the exams conducted by them and even after scoring 47.33 % I was requirement is 45% only."
We have subsequently received an e-mail dated 4-3-2010 from appellant Shri G. Veerabahu requesting that both these appeals be heard together, which was agreed to. The appeals were then heard on 18-3-2010. The following are present:
Appellant Shri G. Veerabahu Respondents Shri K. D. Muley, CAPIO Shri Pawan Kumar, Additional Director Shri Harish Chander, Dy. Secretary Shri S. S. Pradhan, Executive Assistant File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00078 In this regard Shri K.D. Muley, CAPIO submitted that the order of 20-5- 08 sent to appellant Shri Veerabahu was simply an interim order of Appellate Authority Shri S.K. Sharma. The final order was sent only on 9-9-08. In the meantime, appellant had already moved his second appeal on 2-9-08. Shri 4 K.D. Muley then submitted a copy of the entire file on which appeals are maintained by the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
A copy of the letter of 9-9-08 is also contained in that file attaching the Photostat copy of the relevant notes as provided by the concerned Division. These notes consist of six numbered pages under the heading "Joint Recruitment Cell", Subject: Representation made to Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha by Shri G. Veerabahu. Besides, noting is authenticated by Mr. Pawan Kumar, Dy. Secretary of 29-8-08.
Upon this appellant Shri G. Veerabahu, conceding that he had indeed received this response, argued that although the original noting must contain the signatures of the signatories to the notes these signatures have not been provided to him, only the status and date. Shri Harish Chander, Dy. Secretary, however, submitted that authentication by a senior officer of the Lok Sabha would amount to attestation of the authenticity of the signatures. A copy of the original noting was also displayed in the hearing for the satisfaction of appellant Shri G. Veerabahu.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00614 In this case appellant Shri Veerabahu argued that since he has taken the plea of infringement of human rights, the disposal of his application should have been undertaken within 48 hours. This has not been done. He further argued that besides this after subsequent correspondence, although Lok Sabha Secretariat had agreed to allow inspection of the files, also informed him that the Secretariat does not maintain separate movement registers which will render inspection infructuous.
In this case Shri K.D. Muley also submitted further correspondence in this case which includes a letter of 12-6-09 by which Shri Harish Chander, DS responded to the application of Shri G. Veerabahu informing him as follows:
"The information as supplied by the concerned Divisions of this Secretariat runs into 15 pages and is ready for despatch. You may, deposit Rs. 30/- (Rs. 2/- per page) as information fee for the 15 pages of information to be supplied to you."5
Subsequently, by an e-mail of 17-6-09 appellant Shri G. Veerabahu then asked that as the RTI Act provides for inspection of records, "I would like to inspect the documents before receiving the information".
Subsequently, the correspondence has revolved around the question of whether the amount can be paid for inspection conducted, resulting in neither the fee having been paid nor inspection conducted.
DECISION NOTICE File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00078 In this case clearly the information sought by appellant Shri G. Veerabahu has in fact been provided to him. His stating that there are defects in the reasoning applied in his case cannot concern this Commission, which can only ensure the supply of information as held by the Public Authority which in this case has been supplied. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, we note that although this appeal is dated 2-9-08 it has been registered on 16-2-2009 and heard only today. The reasons for this delay within this Commission will be enquired into by Joint Registrar, CIC, Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar who will report within 15 days as to the reasons for this delay and whether any individual is to be held responsible.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00614 In this case it has been clarified in the hearing that appellant Shri G. Veerabahu has taken the plea of life and liberty. Clearly, the plea for employment can hardly be seen to be involving a case of danger to life and liberty, although given that the plea had been taken CPIO, would have been expected to respond to such a plea. Nevertheless, in this case the information sought has clearly been provided. If appellant feels that maintaining of movement register is essential for ensuring that access to information is facilitated in the Lok Sabha Sectt and that its absence is an obstruction to the same he may make a complaint to this Commission for consideration u/s 19 (1) (a). On the other hand, there is nothing in the present 6 appeal which will merit the intervention of this Commission. This appeal is also, therefore, hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18-3-2010 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18-3-2010 7