Central Information Commission
Mr.Toby Thomas vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 4 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/002833/BS/0734
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Toby Thomas,
Geethas Ettukuzhy,
Trivandrum Engineering College P.O.
Kerala- 695016.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Communication & I.T. C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram, P.B. No. 6520, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695003.
RTI application filed on : 04/03/2011 PIO replied : 01/04/2011 First appeal filed on : 26/04/2011 First Appellate Authority order : No order. Second Appeal received on : 28/06/2011 Information Sought:
Appellant has sought information on 10 points regarding the H.R. Policy Manual of CDAC, Trivandrum; the name of the candidates called for interview in pursuance of the Advt. No. CDAC (T)/RCT/32/2010 for different posts, those shortlisted for appointments, candidates failed in the interview process. Marks allotted to all the candidates, list of candidates selected under reserved category, division of mark allotted and also the total percentage of mark allotted for the interview in the entire selection process etc. Reply of the CPIO:
CPIO has given point wise reply on 01/04/2011 as follows:
1. We do not have any H.R. Policy Manual for CDAC, Trivandrum.
2. List attached(22 pages)
3. List attached(18 pages)
4. 5, 8, 9 & 10 No such list is readily available. However, information can be derived from list as per serial number 3 above.
6. 1 post is reserved for SC and 11 posts for OBC.
7. List attached (1 page) Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory. Order of the FAA:
Page 1 of 3
No order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Toby Thomas through videoconferencing Respondent: Mr. Srinivas C. Pownikar PIO through videoconferencing The appellant stated that proper information in respect of query Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10 of his RTI application dated 04/03/2011 has not been furnished. The CPIO stated that as regards query no. 1 the old HR manual was under revision and hence was not provided, however, the FAA in his order had offered the appellant to collect a copy, if required. As regards query Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10 the CPIO stated that he will furnish the marks of the selected candidates, minutes of the screening committee relating to advt. no. CDAC(T)/RCT/32/2010 and extracts of qualification of selected candidates. The appellant agreed to the information. He, however, contended that the FAA's reply has been delayed by 20 days and reliefs as requested on page 15 of his paper book may be provided. The CPIO stated that the Director General CDAC who was the FAA had gone on a foreign tour and hence there was some delay in deciding the appeal. He further contended that it can be seen from records that the information sought by the appellant was both cumbersome & voluminous but with efforts the reply was given timely and in a transparent manner. He added that the small gaps, if any, in the reply furnished, were possibly due to unintentional oversight/misunderstanding and not because of any malafide intention to deny information.
Decision Notice:
The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information requested by the appellant as above within 15 days of receipt of this order.
The Commission notes that voluminous information has been sought by the appellant and the CPIO by putting in considerable efforts has furnished a significant portion of the information within the stipulated time without holding back any records thereby indicating his bonafide intent. He has also given reasonable grounds for the delay by the FAA in passing his order. In view of the foregoing the Commission is inclined to believe that there was no malafide/deliberate attempt by the CPIO to deny or give incorrect/incomplete information to the appellant. Therefore, this is not a fit case for initiating punitive action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner September 04, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RS) Page 3 of 3