Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrdeepakkumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 3 April, 2014

                             Central Information Commission
                      Room No.306, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
                                    Website: www.cic.gov.in

                                                                  File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/900893/SS

                                                                                                              

                                                                                                       3.4.14

           Name of the Appellant      : Shri Deepak Kumar

           Name of Respondent        : Staff Selection Commission
           Date of Hearing                : 3.4.14

                                               ORDER




Shri   Deepak   Kumar,   hereinafter   called   the   appellant,   has   filed   the   present   appeal  dated   22.5.13   before   the   Commission   against   the   respondent   Staff   Selection  Commission for not providing requisite information as sought in his RTI application  dated  11.2.13  despite  the  order   of   the  FAA.   The  appellant   was   present   during  the  hearing whereas respondent was represented by Shri G. Nayak, Under Secretary.

2. The appellant has appeared for Computer Proficiency Test in respect of CGL Exam ­2012.  Through   the   said   RTI   application   he   requested   to   know   the   marking   or   evaluation  scheme/methodology/procedure   under   which   he   had   been   awarded   '000'   marks   in   a  particular module of the said test. He has also requested to know how a score of '000'  marks  has  been  arrived  at   or   calculated  in  the  said  module  of   the  test,   alongwith  an  evaluated and signed copy of his performance sheet.

3. Appellant has filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act vide his letter dated  25.3.13 which was disposed of the FAA vide his order dated 9.5.13.  FAA has observed in his order that the RTI application in question was sent to Shri  Satya   Prakash,   CPIO   who   is   closely   related   to  the   subject­matter   and   Shri   Satya  Prakash was directed to provide the requisite information immediately to the appellant. 

4. Said CPIO was not present during the hearing. 

Appellant   submits   during   the   hearing   that   the   orders   of   the   FAA   have   not   been  complied with. Respondent submits that at present, he is not the CPIO and the FAA's  order are to be complied with by Shri Satya Prakash who was the CPIO at that period  and not by him. However, no satisfactory reason came from him as to why the said  CPIO was not present during the hearing. 

5. Insofar as the information sought is concerned, Commission directs Shri Satya Prakash,  CPIO   to   provide   the   information   within   7   days   of   receipt   of   this   order.   However,   the  disclosure of the names of the examiner is exempt from disclosure.  It would be profitable to allude to the judgment of the Apex Court in  Bihar Public  Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein  the Court has referred the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v.  Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [(2011) 8 SCC 497] and held as follows:

Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in  fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court. We  see   no  error   of   jurisdiction  or   reasoning  in  this   regard.   But   direction   to  furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be  opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act.
Marks   are   required   to   be   disclosed   but   disclosure   of   individual   names  would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for  proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act.
Since the names of the examiner are exempt from disclosure, Shri Satya Prakash,  CPIO, while supplying the information, is directed to follow the procedure as prescribed  in Section 10 of the RTI Act in respect of names of the examiner. 
Further since, Shri Satya Prakash, CPIO has failed to adhere to the time­limit  prescribed   for   providing   the   information,   Commission   directs   him   to   show  cause   as   to   why   the   penalty   for   the   delay   is   not   to   be   imposed   on   him.  Commission would hear the matter again on ____________ at _________hrs.
(Sushma Singh) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address of the Parties:
1. Shri Satya Prakash CPIO,  Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,  Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. The US (C­I/1) & CPIO Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,  Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Shri Manab Ray, Deputy Secretary & FAA, Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,  Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
4. Mr. Deepak Kumar, House No. 335, Jatav Mohalla, Tughlakabad Village, New Delhi - 110044.