Central Information Commission
Syamraj R vs State Bank Of India on 1 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/SBIND/A/2022/650436 +
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/660256 +
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/661893
Syamraj R ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
SBI, LHO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ROTARY JN, POOJAPURA
KERALA- 695012 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/08/2023
Date of Decision : 23/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these
relate to the same subject matter.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/06/2022; 30/09/2022 & 30/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 27/07/2022; 12/10/2022 & 03/11/2022
First appeal filed on : 02/08/2022; 15/10/2022 & 01/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 31/08/2022; 10/11/2022 & 18/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/09/2022; 14/11/2022 & 21/11/2022
1
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/650436
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. I was a candidate for SBI Guard recruitment 2021-22. Provide the information below under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
(a) The SBI Guard result published on 24.05.2022 consisting of 248 candidates is in alphabetical order. Why the rank list was not published.
(b) What were the selection criteria for SBI Guard recruitment.
(i) If the selection criteria were based on Physical test and Physical aptitude, what was the mark I point allotted. What was the maximum mark / point allotted to each item (Push up 5-meter Shuttle and physical aptitude test)?
(ii) Whether any bonus mark / point was awarded to the candidates (Army course. Awards etc.)?
(c) What is the total vacancy in Kerala.
(d) If there are 248 vacancies, what is the criteria to fill the vacancies arising due to medically unfit and candidates who are not willing to join? If the vacancies are filled out by the same candidates. Why the supplementary list was not published.
(e) Provide the item wise mark scored by the 1st Rank holder in SBI Guard selection: -
(i) 5 - meter shuttle per minute.
(ii) No. of pushups per minute.
(iii) No Bent - knee sit - ups per minute.
(iv) Physical aptitude test.
(v) Others (Specify)
(f) Provide the Item wise mark scored by the 248th Rank holder in SBI Guard selection: -
(i) 5 - meter shuttle per minute.
(ii) No. of pushup per minutes
(iii) No Bent - knee sit - ups per minute.2
(iv) Physical aptitude test.
(v) Others (Specify)
(g) Provide the item wise mark scored by the me (Syamraj R, Ex Hay No. 15784501F) in 581 Guard selection:-
(i) 5 - meter shuttle per minute.
(Ii) No. of pushups per minute.
(iii) No Bent - knee sit - ups per minute.
(iv) Physical aptitude test.
(v) Others (Specify)
2. Whether the SBI Guard selection process was transparent? If it was transparent, what criteria has the Selection board established to ensure transparency for candidates.
(a) How many candidates have participated in the selection process from 14 districts of Kerala. Provide the district with wise details.
(b) How many candidates got selected from 14 districts of Kerala? Provide the district with wise details.
(c) How vacancies were allotted to Kollam district among the total vacancy,
(d) What is the reservation percentage for SC, ST and OBC? What are the criteria adopted to determine the selection of the candidates according to reservation,
(e) Whether the district wise list of candidates selected was shared with district Sainik Board.
(f) How many candidates from SC, ST & OBC Category participated in the selection process?
(g) How candidates from SC ST & OBC Category qualified in selection process.
(h) How many have been selected from SC. ST & OBC Category.3
(i) Why the SC, ST & OBC category was not marked in the list of 248 candidates.
(j) Specify the Rotation chart of SC, ST & OBC category."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.07.2022 stating as under:
"Point 1(a), 1(d), 1(i): The query is interrogatory as well as seeking clarification and explanation from the public authority and as such does not fall within the purview of the definition of information" given in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Point 1(b): The selection involved two phases viz phase 1 (physical test) and Phase II ( Physical ,Aptitude Test) Those who have qualified in Phase I were only called for Phase II.
Point 1(b)(i): Enclosed as Annexure I Point 1(b)(ii): No Point 1(c): Vacancies sanctioned for the year 2021-22was 286 (260+10% reserve) Point 1(e) & 1(f): The queries sought by the applicant are personal information of other candidates, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of other individuals. The public authority is exempted from providing personal information under Section 8 (1) & 9e) of the RTI Act Point 1(g): Phase 1- 50/60, phase II 36/40 Point 2(a): 3970.
Point 2(b), (f) & (j): The data is not readily available with us.
Point 2(c): Vacancy is maintained for the whole circle and district wise vacancy is not maintained.
Point 2(d): As per the Reservation Policy of Govt of India Point 2(e): Yes.4
Point 2(g) & (h): Number of candidates selected in SC/ST/OBC categories: 97."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 31.08.2022, advised the CPIO to relook into query no. 1e, 1f, 2g, 2f and 2d in the RTI application within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of the order.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/660256 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Reference: SBI Guard selection 2021-2022.
1. I (No 15784501F Ex Havildar Syamraj R) was a candidate for SBI Guard recruitment 2021-22. Provide the below mentioned information under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
2. How many candidates have joined the job in 260 (Except 10% reservation) vacancies.
3. How many vacancies are there at present.
4. How many OBC candidates have joined the job in 70 (As per government OBC reservation policy of Kerala state is 27%, ie 70.2 out of 260) vacancies out of 77 qualified OBC candidates.
5. How many OBC category candidates are there who have not joined the job despite getting selected.
6. How many OBC vacancies are there at present.
7. What is my seniority in the existing vacancies.
8. What is my seniority in the existing OBC categories vacancies.
9. Specify the marks and rank obtained by qualified OBC category candidates in order of preference (No need to specify name of persons or 5 other details only marks are sufficient). If more than one candidate has secured the same mark, also specify their date of birth (Date of birth is not required to be provided if date of birth does not fall within the ambit of the RTI).
10. Specify the marks and rank obtained by me out of total qualified candidates.
11. Specify the rank obtained by me out of qualified OBC category candidates."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 12.10.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 2: No: of candidates joined the Bank in Bank Guard Recruitment 2021- 22 as on date is 239.
Point No. 3 & 6: Vacancies are declared for each recruitment process. The vacancies for Bank Guard Recruitment 2021-22 are as under:
Total Vacancies: 286 Vacancies in OBC category: 77 Point No. 4 & 5: All the candidates selected under OBC category in Bank Guard Recruitment 2021-22 have joined the Bank.
Point No. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11:
Highest Mark secured: 92.
Lowest mark secured: 90.
Marks secured by Shyama raj R is Bank Guard Recruitment 2021-22 Phase I: 50/60, Phase II: 36/40 Total: 86/100 Since the marks secured by you is less that the minimum qualifying marks required for selection under OBC category, you were not qualified for selection in Bank Guard Recruitment 2021-22."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 10.11.2022, held as under:
6"Vide query no. 3, the Appellant has sought the present vacancy position of SBI Guard recruitment 2021-22. Vide query No. 6, the Appellant has sought the present vacancy position of SBI Guard recruitment 2021-22 under OBC category.
The CPIO has replied that vacancies are declared for each recruitment process and the total vacancies for Bank Guard recruitment 2021-22 is 286 out of which 77 is under OBC category. The contention raised by the Appellant is the present appeal is that the information about how many vacancies is currently available is not given for query no 3 and as per rotation policy of OBC category for query no 6. With respect to query no. 3, the CPIO has already clarified that vacancies are declared for each recruitment process and the CPIO has also provided the vacancies declared for Bank Guard recruitment 2021-22. With respect to query no 6, it is not clear what the Appellant meant by "as per rotation policy of OBC category". The contention of the Appellant is not clear and the CPIO has already provided the required information. Hence, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeal.
Vide query no. 7, the Appellant has sought his seniority in the existing vacancies. Vide query no. 8, the Appellant has sought his seniority in the existing OBC category vacancies. Vide query no 9, the Appellant has sought the mark and rank obtained by candidates under OBC category in order of preference. Vide query no. 10, the Appellant has sought the mark and rank secured by him in the SBI Guard recruitment 2021-22. Vide query no. 11, the Appellant has sought the rank obtained by him among the qualified OBC category candidates. The CPIO vide the reply for query no 7,8,9,10 & 11 has provided the highest and lowest mark secured by the selected candidates and the mark secured by the Appellant in SBI Guard recruitment 2021-22. The Appellant has raised the contentions as mentioned in para 4 for the said queries. Since the CPIO has already provided the available information to all the queries, I do not find any merit in the contentions. Nevertheless, the CPIO is advised to find out the marks obtained by the last OBC category candidate selected in the above recruitment process and provide the said details also to the Appellant."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/661893 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2022 seeking the following information:7
"You are requested to provide rank list (including marks and rank) of SBI guard selection 2021-2022 under RTI act 2005."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.11.2022 stating as under:
"Selection list of Bank Guard recruitment 2021-22 was published on 24.05.2022 by Bank (copy enclosed) and have to advise that bank has not published any rank list/supplementary rank list in this regard."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.11.2022, upheld with the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Gayathrinathan, AGM & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant was heard at length regarding his grievances, the sum and substance of his arguments was that he was not selected despite fulfilling all the selection criteria and he insists for the rank list to be provided to him and wanted to know why there is no waiting list prepared.
The CPIO submitted that the available and permissible information has been already provided to the Appellant in the three cases under reference.
In File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/650436, it was added that the FAA's order was complied with on 27.09.2022 with respect to points 1e, 1f, 2g, 2f and 2d of the RTI Application wherein item-wise marks secured by the candidate with highest and lowest score; reservation percentage and category wise number of candidates selected was also provided while also informing that the number of candidates who participated in the recruitment category wise is not readily available. Similarly in File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/660256 also the FAA's order was complied with and reply was provided on 14.11.2022 informing the lowest mark secured by the qualified the OBC category candidate. In File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/661893, the reply already provided was reiterated and it was 8 submitted that the Bank has published only a select list of the candidates and not any list with rank and the mark.
Another pertinent aspect of the case that the Commission took on record was the following common excerpt from the written submissions of the CPIO dated 19.08.2023:
"6. The relief and the grounds for the relief raised by the Appellant are untenable and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations and averments in the Appeal are untrue and hence denied. The Appellant has so far submitted 07 (seven) of RTI applications and 05 (five) number of First Appeals on the same matter. The repeated applications on the same subject matter is nothing but an abuse of RTI Act. In fact, the misuse of RTI Act by the Appellant has caused disproportionate diversion of the recourse of the public authority, State Bank of India. The Respondent further submit that the Competent Authority of the Bank by following the due process of selection prepared the Selection List. It is also submitted that the Appellant could not secure the minimum qualifying mark required for selection under the OBC category, he was not qualified for selection in the bank Guard Recruitment 2021-22."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provided a cogent and appropriate reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act in each of the instant appeal(s). The issues and concerns raised by the Appellant during the hearing is in the form of expressing conjecture and seeking for creation of information which is not the mandate of the RTI Act. Clearly, the Appellant has a grievance against his non-selection and under the garb of seeking for information he is channelising the said grievance by asking for responses that is beyond the mandate of the RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:9
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 10 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:11
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) With respect to the personal information sought for regarding other candidates, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and 12 conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 13