Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/09/00177
Dated April 23, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.Satish Chander Bhardwaj
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Information & Technology
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.5.3.07 with the CPIO, M/o
Communication and IT. He made the following request in relation to the
appointment of Dr.N.Vijayditaya as CCA I MCIT.
i) The applicant has also applied for the post of CCA. His qualification
and experience are equivalent to the post as advertised in the newspaper. He
did not receive any call letter. He wants to know the reasons for it.
ii) He would like to know about the selection criteria of the interview
committee how Mr.Vijayaditaya is selected by the interview committee
iii) How can Mr.Vijayaditaya can join the post of CCA after his retirement.
Has he taken the permission for the re-employment
iv) A certified copy of the bio data of Mr.Vijayaditaya which was submitted
for the post of CCA.
v) How many candidates applied for the post of CCA. What was the
name, qualification and experience etc. How many candidates were called for
the interview and what was the selection criteria for calling the candidates for
the interview.
vi) When was the interview held. Who were in the interview committee.
What was the qualifications, experience, address and names of the members
of the interview committee. Their written records for awarding the grades
and marks given to the candidates who attended the interview.
vii) Certified copy of the approval of ACC.
The applicant also stated that he went to the Ministry of Communication & IT
for giving a letter to Mr. Bahl, PIO who misbehaved with him and refused to
take the letter from him. He came out of the office and posted the letter as
RPAD. The PIO replied on 2.3.07 as follows:
i) The stipulated date for receipt of the application as per the
advertisement was 21.11.06. The advance copy of the application of the
applicant was received only on 27.11.06. The application through proper
channel was also not considered. Hence his candidature could not be
considered.
ii) CIC has itself held that ‘since ACRs themselves according to us are
barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference, DPC proceedings should be
similarly barred’. Hence information cannot be disclosed.
iii) No permission is required to be taken under Rule 10(8) of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 in such cases
iv) This is personal information and will not be serving larger public
interest and is exempted under sec.8(1)(j)
v) 20 candidates had applied for the post. Details of candidates could not
be forwarded in view of (iv) above. CIC has itself held in appeal
No.115/ICPB/2006 dt.25.9.06 that ‘since ACRs themselves according to us
are barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference, DPC proceedings
should be similarly barred’. Hence information cannot be disclosed.
vi) CIC has itself held in appeal No.115/ICPB/2006 dt.25.9.06 that ‘since
ACRs themselves according to us are barred from disclosure, we hold that by
inference, DPC proceedings should be similarly barred’. Hence information
cannot be disclosed.
vii) Approval of the ACC is also a part of the DPC proceedings and
classified. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided.
Not satisfied with the reply, the applicant filed a complaint dt.20.2.09 before
CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for April 23, 2009.
3. Mr. Zail Singh, DDG & CPIO, Mr. B.B. Bahl, Jt. Director, Mr. L.N. Raju, JD,
Mr. N.S. Rawat, S.O. and Mr. Swarup Dutta, Scientist ‘D’ represented the
Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a certified copy of the Appellant’s
application to him as requested in the RTI application. With regard to the
query regarding reappointment of Mr. Vijayaditaya , the Appellant submitted
that a senior retired officer of a rank of Director General has to take the
permission of President of India for reappointment and cannot be reappointed
within 90 days of retirement. According to the Respondent, there is no such
rule . The relevant rule from CCS(CCA) pension rules was presented before
the Commission by the Respondent. After hearing both sides, the
Commission directs the CPIO to provide the certified copy of the Pension rule
to the Appellant along with Mr. Vijayaditya’s bio-data. During the hearing the
Respondent also mentioned that no interview was held for the post and that
the candidate was selected on the basis of his qualifications and experience as
given in his application, by the Search-cum-Selection Committee which was
set up to select the right candidate. Accordingly, the Commission directs the
CPIO to provide a certified copy of the minutes of the meeting of the
Search-cum-Selection Committee held on 21.12.06 in connection with
selection of the Officer for the post CCA I MCIT, to the Appellant. Since no
marks or grades were given as there were no interviews, there is no
information to be provided in this regard. A certified copy of the ACC
approval, presented to the Commission during the hearing may be provided.
All information to be provided within 20 days of issue of this Order.
6. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr.Satish Chander Bhardwaj
Block 17/927, Lodhi Colony
New Delhi 110 003
2. Mr.B.B.Bahl
The PIO & Joint Director
Dept. of Information & Technology – HQ
Electronics Niketan
6, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC