Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4221/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000195
Dated, the 24th July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Partha Pratim Bera
Name of the Public Authority: Durgapur Steel Plant
i
Facts
:
1. The case was heard in absence of the appellant on 24/7/2009.
2. The appellant has grievances regarding his selection to the post of M.S.P.
(Radiology). In response to an advertisement for the above post, the appellant
appeared for the written test and interview held on 18.5.08 and 17.9.2008,
respectively. In this regard, he asked for information, vide his RTI application
dated 16/3/2009, for access to the evaluated answer sheets and score of marks
awarded to him in the written test and interview.
3. The appellant did not receive the requested information within the
stipulated period of 30 days. He therefore submitted his complaint to the West
Bengal Information Commission, which, in turn, forwarded the complaint to this
Commission for the reasons of its jurisdiction.
4. This Commission issued notice of hearing on June 10, 2009 in response
to which the CPIO furnished the answer sheet of the appellant and score of
marks of all the candidates in the written test as well as in the interview, vide his
letter dated July 14, 2009. The appellant has received the information but he
has not offered his comments so far.
5. In the course of hearing, the reasons for inordinate delay in supply of
information, including the score of marks of all the candidates under different
parameters were examined. It was observed that among all the candidates, the
appellant has scored the highest marks, i.e. 59/100 in the written test and the
lowest marks i.e., 8/25 in the interview. While he has been marked passed in the
written test, he is marked failed in interview. Hence, excluded from the merit list.
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
6. The appellant’s total score is 67 (59+8) and in the overall merit list he
occupies third position. Yet, he is not declared as a successful candidate
because he got the lowest marks, 8, in the interview. Interestingly, all the five
experts have independently given 8/25 to make it to the average of 8/25. He is
the only candidate to score both a highest of 59/100 and the lowest of 8/25.
Decision:
7. The disclosure of marks awarded to the appellant give rise to the
suspicion that there could be some unfair practice in the award of interview
marks to the appellant because of which a highest scorer of marks of 59/100 in
the written test, scored the lowest marks, i.e. 8/25 in the interview; and most
surprisingly all the five Members of the Selection Committee awarded the same
marks, 8/25, leading to the average score of 8/25 only, to the appellant.
8. It is suspected that because of inconsistency and wide disparity in the
award of marks, the respondent was hesitant in disclosing the information asked
for by the appellant. The appellant was therefore constrained to submit his
complaint before the Commission. The information asked for on 16.3.2009 was
released on 14.7.2009, after nearly four months when the proceedings were
initiated by the Commission. Clearly, the delay in providing the information is
due to malafied reasons.
9. In numerous cases, this Commission has ordered that the information
relating to recruitment and selection process should be put in public domain so
as to demonstrate fairness and objectivity in the selection process. Yet, the
respondent has not taken the cognizance of the Commission’s earlier orders and
created unnecessarily a compelling situation to file a complaint before the
Commission.
10. A major concern of RTI has been to effect changes in the functioning of
public authorities, particularly in respect of promotion of efficiency and
accountability, including the containment of all forms of corrupt practices. In the
instant case, the respondent does not seem to have accorded priority to establish
a transparent system for recruitment of professionally qualified persons.
11. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO, Shri. B.R. Kanungo, is held responsible
for violation of Section 7(1) of the Act, as he has failed to provide the information
for malafied reasons within the mandatory period of 30 days. He is directed to
show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act. He should
submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on
25th August 2009 at 11.30 a.m., failing which penalty would be imposed. In case
the delay in providing the information is caused due to lackadaisical attitude of
2
any other officials, the custodian of information, he should also be informed and
asked to be present in the hearing.
12. In view of what has been observed in the matter of award of marks in the
written and interview test, and the criteria of final selection of candidates which is
at variance with the convention of selection of candidates on the basis of total
marks, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses including mental
harassment in the process of accessing information to unearth the truth about the
selection process. The appellant should therefore be compensated. The
respondent’s Managing Director, or his nominee, should explain as to why a
suitable amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only)
should not be awarded to the appellant, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act. The Managing
Director or his nominee, should also appear for a personal hearing on the date
and time indicated above. The appellant may also be present.
13. The respondent’s Managing Director should enquire into the matter of
recruitment process in question, and ascertain whether (i) the selection criterion
of each candidate obtaining pass marks, separately in the written test and
interview is valid and approved by the competent authority; and (ii) the members
of the Selection Committee (5) connived in any manner to award the fail marks,
incidentally 8/25 by each member. A report in this regard should be submitted at
the earliest, preferably by August 25, 2009.
14. The complaint is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Partha Pratim Bera, At: Alamchak, PO: Bhadrakali, Dist: West
Medinipur, WB – 721 437
2. Shri. B.R. Kanungo, PIO, Durgapur Steel Plant, Ispat Bhavan (Ground
Floor), Durgapur – 713 203.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
3
3. The Appellate Authority, Durgapur Steel Plant, Ispat Bhavan (Ground
Floor), Durgapur – 713 203
4. The Managing Director, Durgapur Steel Plant, Ispat Bhavan (Ground
Floor), Durgapur – 713 203
4