CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000496 & 627 dated 23-4-2009 & 3-6-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rajpal Singh
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission, (UPSC)
Heard & Decision announced 29.7.2010
FACTS
These are two appeals moved by Shri Rajpal Singh of New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi seeking information regarding examination from the UPSC. The parties
being identical and the issue similar they have been clubbed together for hearing.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00496
In his application of 4-2-09 Shri Rajpal Singh has sought the following
information from CPIO, UPSC
‘1. Reason of not short listing of me for the said interview.
2. If, the reasons is short of my MA degree with application
form, then why I was not called for interview provisionally.
3. Also provide a copy of the noting portion of
representation submitted dated 21/22 Jan 2009 addressed to
Chairman/ Secretary UPSC.”
To this he received a point-wise response from CPIO, Shri Ashok
Mehta Dy. Secretary dated 24-8-09 informing him as follows:
“Point No. 1.: You could not be short listed for interview
because your application for the abovementioned post
was incomplete.
Point No. 2: In the direct recruitment cases (through interview), it
has been inter-alia made abundantly clear in the
advertisement that no provisionally claim on any ground
will be considered.
Point No. 3: Note portion of the File cannot be shared with
applicant as these relates to functioning of core areas of
the Commission and would harm the protected interest of
the Commission. The same is exempted form disclosure
under section 8 (i) (d) of the RTI Act.”
Aggrieved with this information, appellant Shri Rajpal Singh then
moved an appeal before Shri Nuruddin Ansari on 27-2-09 pleading as below:
1
“I requested to give me reason for not short listing me and it
should be clear by give the reasons of not short listing. So,
please give the reason on which grounds my application was
incomplete with noting portion.”
Upon this Shri Ansari in his order of 20-3-09 has allowed the appeal as
below:
“The CPIO, UPSC informed the appellant that he was not short
listed for interview, as his application was incomplete. I find that
this reply of the CPIO is not elaborate. To my mind, the reply to
this should have been spelt out clearly as to on what account
the application was found incomplete in order to satisfy the
query of the appellant. With regard to the request for noting
portion, the CPIO denied the same u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act,
2005 holding that this relates to functioning of core areas of the
Commission and would harm the protected interest of the
Commission. Apparently, the appellant wanted to have copy of
noting portion to know the fate of his representation referred to
in para 3 above and in view of this I find that it requires a more
convincing and satisfactory reply.”
In compliance with this order Shri Ashok Mehta, CPIO, UPSC has
provided the following information to Shri Rajpal Singh dated 27-3-2009:
“1. You could not be short-listed for interview for the above
mentioned posts because your application was found
incomplete as you did not submit Master’s Degree
certificate along with your application form as proof in
support of your essential educational qualification.
Moreover, in the advertisement itself it was made
abundantly clear that the candidates should attach with
their application attested/ self certified copies of the
certificates including degree or diploma certificate in
support of their educational qualification. If no copies of
the requisite certificate are sent with the application, it is
liable to be rejected and no appeal against its rejection
will be entertained.
2. Your representation dated 15.1.2009 was considered in
the Commission. However, your request for considering
the documents submitted after the closing date could not
be acceded to. The cut of date in the present matter was
29.5.2008 and further in the advertisement it was clearly
mentioned that if no copies of the certificates are sent
with the application. It is liable to be rejected and no
appeal against its rejection will be entertained. In view of
this, the documents submitted by you at such a belated
stage i.e. on 15.1.2009 could not be entertained. In view
of this position, no formal reply was sent in response to
2
your representation dated 15.1.2009 and subsequent
representation dated 21/22 January, 2009
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00627
This case is similar to the earlier one discussed above. In this case the
information sought by Shri Rajpal Singh from CPIO, UPSC in his application
received by the UPSC on 23-2-09 is as below:
“1. In this recruitment process some of the candidates have
been asked to submit the Employer certificate within 20
days. Two candidates to whom I know are Mr. Ajay
Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Rattan Singh. Please reply that
why you ask them to fulfil the requirement i.e. submission
of employer certificate and why I was not asked to submit
the copy of the degree with statistics.
2. As per my earlier telephonic enquiry, the concerned
dealing hand said that as per new guidelines my candidature was
cancelled. Please supply me the copy of the new guidelines.
3. As per my earlier telephonic enquiry, the concerned
dealing hand said that as per new guidelines my candidature was
cancelled. Please give me reasons that in the same conditions why
some candidates given a 20 days time to fulfil the deficiency found in
their applications.
4. Please give reason why you called candidates for
interview in the recruitment of ADCO (T) in O/o RGI, vide your file No.
F.1/54/2008-R.IV and why the new guidelines were not followed in the
said case. Two candidates to whom I know are Shan-E-Alam and Shri
Vijendra Kumar who were provisionally called for the said interview on
12.2.2009.
5. Please tell me names of the candidates who called by the
Commission for the interview for the post of AD (Planning/Statistics) in
Govt. of Delhi, and if you call them provisionally, why not given me and
other candidates a chance to call provisionally them too.
6. Is it not a violation of rules of natural justice not to give a
chance to the candidates before cancelling their candidatures?
7. Is it not the responsibility of the Commission to ask the
candidates to fulfil the deficiency, whether committed by you or by the
candidates, because there are chances that the copy of any document
may be detached in the process of scrutiny etc by the Commission
also.”
To this Shri Rajpal Singh received a response dated 13-3-09 from
CPIO, UPSC informing him point-wise as below:
“Point No. 1 & 3: Sh. Ajay Kumar Tripathi (Roll No. 32 and Shri
Rattan Singh Roll No. 34 were required to submit a proof
from their respective employer to the effect that they are
regularly appointed Central Govt. Employee as on closing
date i.e. 12.6.2008, in the respective recruitment case.
3
This information is mandatory because it is not feasible
for the candidates to submit on the date of submitting
their applications which is apparently before the closing
date.
Point no. 2: In the direct recruitment cases (Through Interview)
including the instant case, in the advertisement itself it
has been inter-alia made abundantly clear that no
provisionally on any ground will be considered.
Point no. 4: You did not submit the document that is a copy of
the degree as required under Essential Qualification.
Whereas other two candidates viz Shri Shan-E-Alam and
Shri Vijendra Kumar were asked to submit the certificate
in support of their claim that they have statistics in the
Master’s Degree.
Point No. 5: A total of 18 candidates have been called for
interview. Out of these, four candidates have been called
subject to the outcome of an OA filed in the CAT Principal
Branch Delhi in connection with the respective
recruitment case.
Point No. 6 & 7.: The decision was taken duly after scrutinising
the respective applications as per prescribed procedure
within the powers of the Commission and hence, question
of violation of rules of natural justice does not arise.”
Upon this Shri Rajpal Singh moved an appeal before Shri Nuruddin
Ansari disputing each of the answers provide by CPIO as below:
“Point No. 1 & 3: It is submitted that the criteria for clearance of
provisionally should be equal for the all candidatures and
should not be arbitrary and biased. Provisionally on any
ground is provisionally. Moreover many candidates are
provisionally interviewed as at the time of the interview
they were not bringing with them Essential Qualifications
certificates. Hence, the reply is unsatisfactory and
incomplete.
Point No.2: In this para I sought a copy of the new guidelines,
but the same was not provided to me. Hence, the reply is
unsatisfactory, incomplete and showing the attitude of
delaying the reply.
Point No. 4: In this para, reply was given to me that I did not
attach a copy of the degree as required under the
essential Qualification, but it crystal clear that Essential
Qualification for the said post is Master’s Degree in
Economics with Statistics. So, the Statistics is essential
and to give a chance to clear the provisionally to other
candidates, and not to me is not in the interest of justice,
law and equity. Hence, the reply is unsatisfactory,
incomplete and showing the attitude of delaying the reply.
Point No. 5: In this para I sought the names of the candidates
but was not supplied to me. Hence, the reply is4
unsatisfacto5ry, incomplete and showing the attitude of
delaying the reply.
Point No. 6 & 7: there is a gross violation of natural justice and
equity as the Commission is summoning some
candidates even they did not fulfil the essential
qualifications and experience criteria and on the other
hand eligible candidates were not called. Hence, the
reply is unsatisfactory, incomplete and showing the
attitude of delaying the reply.”
Shri Nuruddin Ansari in his order of 8-4-09 has allowed this appeal also
directing as below:
“The appellant through his original request had sought
information on 7 points. I find from the reply of the CPIO that a
point-wise clear reply has not been given to satisfy the queries
of the appellant. The reply of the CPIO to point No.5 is silent in
respect of request of the appellant to provide names of
candidates called for interview.
In view of above, the appeal is remanded back to the CPIO to
consider the case afresh and send a detailed clear point-wise
satisfactory reply to the appellant within seven working days
from the passing of the order.”
In compliance with these directions CPIO Shri Baijal, Dy. Secretary has
informed the appellant Shri Rajpal Singh as below:
“Point No. 1&3: Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi (Roll No. 32) and Shri
Rattan Singh (Roll No. 34) were required to submit a
proof from their respective employer to the effect that
they a re regularly appointed Central Govt. Employee as
on closing date i.e. 12.6.2008, in the respective
recruitment case. It is not feasible for the candidates to
submit this information on the date of submission of their
applications which is apparently before the closing date.
Thus it is clear that the information sought from the above
mentioned two candidates is different from the reasons
for which your application in the subject case was
declared incomplete i.e. for want of production of copy of
degree in support of Essential Qualifications.
Point No. 2.: A copy of the respective advertisement of dated
10.5.2008 vide which the instant case was advertised
which includes the said guidelines of the Commission, is
enclosed at ‘Annexure-I.’
Point No. 4: You did not submit the document, that is, a copy of
the degree as required under Essential Qualification.
Whereas other two candidates viz Shri Shan-E-Alam and5
Shri Vijendra Kumar were asked to submit the certificate
in support of their claim that they have Statistics in the
Master’s Degree.
Point no. 5: A total of 18 candidates have been called for
interview as indicated in the list attached at ‘Annexure-II’
for the posts of AD. (Planning/Stat.) in Govt. of NCT of
Delhi. None of these candidates were called provisionally.
However four candidates have been called subject to the
outcome of an OA filed in the CAT, Principal Bench,
Delhi, in connection with the respective recruitment case.
Point No. 6. The decision was taken duly after scrutinising the
respective applications as per prescribed procedure
within the powers of the Commission and hence, question
of violation of rules of natural justice does not arise.
Point No. 7.: The allegation made that there are chances that
the copy of any documents may be detached in the
process of scrutiny etc. by the Commission is false and
baseless as in column 10 of part II of the application form
the candidates are supposed to fill the details of
enclosures with the application forms. As per the details
filled by you, you had not enclosed the documents as
mentioned in point 4 above.”
Both appeals were heard on 29-7-2010. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri R. P. Singh
Respondents
Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R-II)
Shri P. P. Haldar, DS (R.V)
Appellant Shri Rajpal Singh submitted that he felt that he has been
discriminated against because others mentioned in his application were
allowed to appear in the examination provisionally whereas he was not.
Respondent Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS submitted that the difference between the
names as mentioned and that of Shri Rajpal Singh was that in his case there
was no copy of the M.A. certificate. In the case of other candidates the
copies were there and mere clarification had been sought as to whether
Statistics was a subject in their examination, which was a requirement for
recruitment to the position. Nevertheless, respondent Shri P.P. Haldar
conceded that the file noting referring to the specific request of appellant Shri
Rajpal Singh alone, without disclosing matters concerning the core area of the
functioning of the UPSC, can be provided.
6
DECISION NOTICE
We find that in both these cases the information that is held by the
UPSC has been provided except in one vital area and that was in providing
copies of the noting in which the application of appellant has been discussed.
As conceded in the hearing the UPSC has no objection to disclosing this
information now. Appellant Shri Rajpal Singh also conceded that through this
he will be able to satisfy himself as to the bonafides of the reasoning for not
allowing him to sit provisionally for the examination. CPIO will, therefore,
provide to Shri Rajpal Singh copies of the file noting which concerns his
petition within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
To this extent the appeal is allowed. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
29-7-2010
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
29-7-2010
7