Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.5622/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2010/000283
Dated, the 16th July, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Kutty
Name of the Public Authority: Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Facts
: i
1. Both the parties were heard on 8/7/2010. While the appellant was present
in person, the CPIO was represented through his colleague, Shri. Krishna
Murthy.
2. The appellant has alleged that the order of the First Appellate Authority
(FAA) has not been complied with by the CPIO. He has, therefore, pleaded for
providing the information as per the order of FAA dated 11/12/2009.
3. The appellant has asked for a copy of merit list prepared on the basis of
personal interviews conducted by the respondent on 30/11/1996 for the post of
Junior Operator (Field), for which the appellant’s son was also interviewed by the
Selection Committee. In response to the RTI application, the CPIO informed as
under:
“The information/documents sought are personal in nature pertaining to
selection/recruitment event and disclosure of this information has no
relationship with any public activity or interest. As such, the same is
exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”.
4. Being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s decision, the appellant filed his first
appeal before the FAA of the respondent. The FAA set aside the decision of the
CPIO and ordered for providing the information asked for. The FAA vide his
order dated 11/12/2009 made the following observations:
“Conclusion:
I have examined the queries raised by the Appellant, reply of the
Respondent and grounds of appeal. Since the information sought by Shrii
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi1
Mohammed Kutty relating to the interview held on 30/11/1996 for the post
of Junior Operator (Field) at Bottling Plant, Calicut, Chelari P.O.
Malappuram District in Kerala State, in which his son was one of the
candidates appeared for interview, I do not agree with the Respondent
that the information sought by the Appellant is a personal information and
is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The rank list of the selected
candidate for the above interview, as sought by the Appellant, is relating
to the process of selection of staff which should be put in public domain to
ensure transparency and fairness in recruitment of competent persons
and more over the selection process is complete and over, there is no
justification for not disclosing the merit list prepared by the Respondent.
Moreover, the captioned information has also been furnished to the
Malappuram Employment Exchange vide Ref: P/1121/96(19) dated
21.02.1997. Therefore, the information, as sought, by Shri Mohammed
Kutty, as above, cannot be denied.
Final Order:
In view of the above observations and conclusion, the Respondent is
directed to furnish the information, as sought, in the appellant’s application
dated NIL, which was received by this office on 07.10.2009, if the same is
available in the material form within 15 working days from the receipt of
this Order.
Accordingly, the Appeal dated 12th November, 2009 stands disposed off
with the above directions.”
5. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the CPIO has not complied
with the order of the FAA. He, therefore, pleaded that the information should be
provided to him as per the direction of the FAA.
6. The CPIO’s representative, Shri. Krishna Murthy, stated that: (i) the
appellant’s son has grievances regarding appointment to the post of Junior
Operator (Field); (ii) the appellant has sought for legal relief at different fora but
he did not succeed; and (iii) the information asked for by the appellant was not
maintained as per the Record Retention Policy of the respondent. And,
therefore, the same could not be furnished.
7. In his written submission dated 14/7/2010, the CPIO, Shri. K Manickam,
has stated as under:
“As regards the rank wise list, as per the existing policy of the Corporation
at the relevant time, the panel list of candidates appearing in interview
was kept in a file separate from the general recruitment file, since the
same was considered as confidential. The panel list was to be maintained
for a period of 2 years only, to call the next candidate from the list in case2
any of the selected candidates did not join after selection. Since all the
selected candidates in the interview in question here joined in 1997,
perhaps the list was destroyed as per the existing policy.”
Decision:
8. The averments made during the hearing and the evidences on record
clearly indicate contradictory responses by the officials of the respondents. First,
the CPIO refused to provide the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The FAA of the
respondent rejected and reversed the decision of the CPIO and ordered for
disclosure of information. The order of FAA has not been complied with,
however. Second, in his submission before the Commission, the CPIO who
earlier rejected the appellant’s application for information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act
has now stated that “perhaps the list was destroyed”, which is questionable. If
the relevant information was not maintained, why was it not reported or
mentioned in the initial response of the CPIO to the appellant? Even the FAA
has not made a mention of this point as to whether the information in question
has been destroyed or not. The FAA has rejected the contention of the CPIO
and order for providing the information. There is, therefore, no ground to believe
that the information is not maintained or available. The CPIO has indeed lied or
mis-informed with a view to suppressing the information relating to the
recruitment process and merit list of selected candidates.
9. It also emerged during the hearing that as many as five persons were
appointed out of the list of 18 candidates, whose names were supplied to the
respondent by the Employment Exchange. There are reasons to believe that the
concerned list of appointees may be available in the concerned file of the
candidates who were appointed by the Selection Committee on the above
mentioned date. The fact that the FAA has also ordered for disclosure of the
information makes us believe that the relevant information are available with the
respondents. The CPIO has deliberately chosen to withhold the information on
the pretext of non-availability of information, which is not acceptable. The CPIO
is, therefore, directed to furnish the information asked for, as per the order
of the FAA, at the earliest.
10. In view of the above, the CPIO is also held responsible for violation of
section 7(1) of the Act as he has not furnished the information even after a lapse
of over six months of the passage of the order of the FAA. He should, therefore,
explain as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
thousand only) should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act, for deemed
refusal of information without any reasonable cause. He should submit his
explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 26th
August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which the above amount of penalty would be
imposed on him.
3
11. The CPIO has failed to carry out the directions of his superior officer, the
FAA. This tantamounts to insubordination, and is unbecoming of an officer
holding the charge of the CPIO also. The respondent’s Chairman is directed u/s
20(2) of the Act, to take appropriate action, under the service rules, against the
CPIO, who has failed to implement the decision of the FAA dated 11/12/2009.
12. The Commission also holds that the appellant has unnecessarily suffered
all kinds of harassment in pursuing his RTI applications, including filing of 1 st and
2nd appeals. Had he been given the information, as per the order of the FAA, he
would not have filed the second appeal before the Commission and traveled a
long distance for attending the hearings in the Commission, for accessing
information that are directly connected with right to work and earn for living. It is
due to lack of both transparency in the selection process and responsiveness of
the officials of the respondent to the information seekers that the appellant has
unnecessarily suffered and wasted time and resources for obtaining information
from the respondent.
13. The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee, should therefore explain as to why
an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) should not be
awarded, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, as compensation to the appellant for detriment
suffered by him in seeking information from the respondent. The Chairman,
IOCL, or his nominee should submit an explanation at the earliest and also
appear for a personal hearing on 26th August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which
the above amount of compensation would be awarded to the appellant on
account of all kinds of losses suffered by him. The appellant may also be
present in the hearing.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissionerii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Mohammed Kutty, Karuvathil House, Padiramanna, P.O.
Puzhakkattiri, Via. Angadippuram, Dist. Malappuram.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
4
2. Shri. K. Manickam, CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing
Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road
(Nungambakkam High road), Chennai – 600 034.
3. Shri. P. Rajendran, Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma
Gandhi Road (Nungambakkam High road), Chennai – 600 034.
4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3079/3 J.B. Tito Marg,
Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi – 110 409.
5