CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000308 dated 7.12.'09
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Dr. Madhu Nagpal
Respondent: Union Public Services Commission, UPSC
Appeal heard on 9.8.'10
Decision announced 17.8.'10
FACTS
By an application of 11-12-08 Shri Satya Bhushan Nagpal of Rohini,
Delhi applied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:
1. Criterion of selection of candidates for the post of
Principal.
(i). With complete break up of marks for Academic &
Prof. Qualification, Teaching Experience and
Interview.
(ii). As per the above criterion, detail of marks awarded
to Roll No. 641, Advt. No. 8/18.
(iii). Cut off marks for the selection of General
Candidates & marks awarded to selected
candidates.
(iv). Names of the candidates in the waiting list with the
details of their marks.
To this Shri Satya Bhushan Nagpal received a response from CPIO,
Shri Ashok Mehta, Dy. Secretary, UPSC dated 7-1-09 informing him as
follows:
Item -I (1 to 4): – Selection of candidates is based on overall
performance of the candidates at the interviews. Break-up of
marks, cut-off marks for selection, marks awarded to
candidates, names of candidates in the waiting list and details of
their marks cannot be shared as these information pertain to
core areas of the Commission and the disclosure of same does
not serve any public interest or activity under Section 8(1)(d) of
the RTI Act, 2005. Further, under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act,
2005 there shall be no obligation to give any citizen the
information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
This was followed by a series of applications from Dr. Madhu Nagpal
which all are undated, seeking the following information:
Request I
1
i) My Rank with the marks obtained by me
and the total marks.
ii) The marks awarded to me in the interview.
iii) Marks awarded to me for Academic
Qualification and teaching Experience.
Request II
1). Cut off Rank/Rank of Last Candidate selected both in
General as well as reserved Category selected for Advt.
8/18 and 52/2006Request III.
i). Total Number of Posts advertised for both General
and Reserved category.
ii). The number of posts on which the candidates
have been posted/filed after the selection.
iii). The number of posts (Gen as well as Reserved)
yet to be filled of that are still vacant and the
candidates are yet to be posted.
Request IV
1. My rank in the Result sheet in the name of Dr.
Madhu Nagpal Roll No. 2136 with the marks obtained by
me. Please give my marks for Academic Qualifications,
Teaching Experience and Interview separately.
To this, then CPIO Shri Ashok Mehta, DS, UPSC responded
painstakingly with a separate response to each application, each dated 23-9-
20091:
I. Selection of candidates is based on overall performance of the
candidates at the interviews. No separate marks for academic
qualifications, teaching experience etc. are assigned to the
candidates. Marks awarded to the candidates cannot be shared
as it pertains to core areas of the functioning of the Commission
and the information is held in fiduciary capacity. Hence the
information cannot be disclosed under the Section 8(1) (e) of the
RTI Act, 2005.
II. There is no advertisement issued by the Commission bearing
Advertisement No. 08/18 for the post of Principal. However, the
Commission had published Advertisement bearing No. 18/08 on
23. 09. 2006 for the above post. The following information is
given pertaining to Advertisement No. 18/08 and Spl. 52/2006: –
Rank(s) assigned to the candidates are based on marks
awarded by the Interview Board. Marks awarded to a candidate
1
These have not been arranged sequentially, and must be read together to answer the questions in
appellant’s series of applications
2
cannot be shared as information pertains to core areas of the
functioning of the Commission and is held in fiduciary capacity.
Hence the information cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)
(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
III. The following information is given pertaining to Advertisement
No. 18/08: –
Selection of Candidates is based on overall performance of the
candidates at the interviews. No separate marks for academic
qualifications, teaching experience etc. are assigned to the
candidates. Marks awarded to the candidates cannot be shared as
it pertains to core areas of the functioning of the Commission and
the information is held in fiduciary capacity. Hence the information
cannot be disclosed under the Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
IV. Item No. 1: Total Number of post advertised for both General
and reserved category in each recruitment of above posts are given
below:-
Advt. No. Spl. 52/2006
Total numbers of posts are 53 (29 Male & 24 Female). Out of 53
posts, 11 posts (04 Male & 07 Female) were reserved for
Scheduled Castes candidates. 07 posts (05 Male & 02 Female)
were reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates. 01 post (Female)
was reserved for OBC candidates and remaining 34 posts (20 Male
& 14 Female) were unreserved. Out of 53 posts. 02 posts were
also reserved for physically handicapped persons (Male/Female) of
any community.
Advt. No. 18/08
There is no advertisement issued by the Commission bearing
Advertisement No. 08/18 for the post of Principal However, the
Commission had published Advertisement bearing No. 18/08 on
23.09.2006 for the above post. Hence, the following information is
given pertaining to Advertisement No. 18/08:-
Total numbers of posts were 27 (15 Male & 12 Female). Out of 27
posts, 03 posts (02 Male & 01 Female) were reserved for
Scheduled Castes candidates. 02 posts (01 Male & 01 Female)
were reserved for Scheduled Tribes Candidates. 07 posts (04 Male
& 03 Female) were reserved for OBC candidates and remaining 15
posts (08 Male & 07 Female) were unreserved. Out of 53 posts, 01
post are reserved for physically handicapped persons (Male
/Female) of any community. (Reservation for SC/ST/OBC is
vertical whereas reservation of PH persons is horizontal.
Item No. 2:
The Commission only recommend the candidates to the
Department concerned. Posting of recommended candidates is the
sole responsibility of the Department concerned.
Item No. 3:
3
Advt. No. Spl 52/2006
The recommendation of all 51 candidates (2-ST Female posts
became infructuous at interview level) has been sent the concerned
department.
Advt. No. 18/08
The recommendation of 26 candidates has been sent to the
concerned department and recommendation of one candidate has
been withheld.
Upon this Dr. Madhu Nagpal has made a single appeal before Shri
Kamal Bhagat, JS (R-II) UPSC pleading that “I hereby submit that the
information given by the commission does not satisfy me.” She has then
summarised the information sought as follows:
i). My Rank in the Result sheet.
ii). The marks obtained by me in the interview.
iii).The cut-off Rank.
iv). The list of selected candidates with their Ranks (General
as well as Reserved category)
v). The Number of posts against which the candidates have
not yet joined, the vacant ones, that are yet to be filled, as
informed by the Directorate of Education, NCT of Delhi.
vi). The number of posts on which the selected candidates
have joined as per the department.
Upon this Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R-II) vide order dated 18-11-09 has
ordered as follows:
4. The CPIO has declined to share the information on point
No. (1) to (3) claiming exemption from disclosure under
Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that it
pertains to core areas of the functioning of the Commission
and the information is held in fiduciary capacity. Though
agreeing with the CPIO that the information sought pertains
to core areas of the Commission, I do not find the reason
conducive that the information is held in fiduciary capacity.
The appellant is informed that the operative life period of the
Reserve Panel is 18 months in normal case and 24 months
in exceptional circumstances from the date of finalization of
Result i.e. Interview Board Report. Since the Reserve
Panels in these two cases have not outlived its validity, the
information on point (1) to (3) cannot be disclosed.
5. The information asked for under point No. (4) in her
instant appeal being a new piece of information cannot be
entertained at appeal stage. With regard to point (5) and (6),
the CPIO has already provided information to the appellant
which is found to be satisfactory.
4
This has brought Dr. Madhu Nagpal before us in second appeal with
the following prayer:
1). For items 1,2,3,4 the CPIO claimed exemption and denied
to give me the information under section 8(1)(e) whereas, I
believe in fiduciary capacity, the information must be given
by the holder of the information when there is a choice.
The 1ST Appellate Authority claimed exemption without
quoting any section & informed about the operative life
period and validity of the Reserve panel and refused to
disclose the required information.
2) For items 5 & 6 I believe there is no fiduciary relationship
between the UPSC and the Directorate. Of Education. If
the information was not held with the UPSC, it should have
been transferred to the Department. (Directorate. Of
Education, Government of NCT of Delhi).
Because the UPSC had advertised 58 more posts of Principal in the
Delhi Directorate of Education, appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal applied for out of
turn hearing as this would have a bearing on information sought by her, which
was agreed to. The appeal was heard on 9-8-2010. The following are present.
Appellants
Ms. Madhu Nagpal
Shri S. B. Nagpal
Respondents
Shri Kamal Bhagat, Jt. Registrar (R-II), UPSC
Shri P. P. Halder, DS (R.V)
The appeal was examined in light of the abbreviated information
sought in appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal’s first appeal of 29-10-2009.
Respondent CPIO Shri P.P. Haldar, DS (R-V) UPSC submitted that
there was no cut of rank in the interview. He also submitted that it is only
successful candidates who are ranked and therefore, Dr. Madhu Nagpal
would have received no rank in the result sheet. On the question of marks
obtained by her in the interview, however, Shri P.P. Haldar submitted that this
information is never disclosed except when the vacancies may arise above
and beyond the recruitment made when upon a reference made from a
particular department such information is provided. JS, Shri Kamal Bhagat,
however, submitted that as per the decision of this Commission in Ashok
5
Kumar Singh Vs. UPSC in file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00617-SM the issue had
been referred to the Chairman, UPSC for consideration whether such
information should continue to be exempted from disclosure.
On the question at serial No. 4, as Appellate Authority has held, this
being a new question, not raised in any of the earlier applications, it would
normally call for a separate and fresh application. However, CPIO Shri
P.P.Haldar agreed that he has no difficulty in providing this information, if
asked. Appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal, on the other hand, submitted a copy of an
advertisement by the Staff Selection Commission in which not only the names
and marks of the selected candidates are disclosed but also those in the
waiting list. She, therefore, contested the plea that no marks were give to those
who were not selected, since it was from this reserved list that candidates were
recommended for new vacancies which recommendation would logically follow
from the position of each of the wait-listed candidates on the merit list. Shri
P.P. Haldar also conceded this point but with the qualification that such
information is in the sealed cover and therefore, unknown to the CPIO,
disclosable only to the Member of the UPSC for recommending names to the
recruiting department.
DECISION NOTICE
On question No.3, information on cut off rank information has now
been provided in the hearing. Since the list of selected candidates with their
ranks is readily available with the CPIO, even though this request had not
featured in the original application and, therefore, the order of the Appellate
Authority Shri Kamal Bhagat was correct, to avoid inconvenience, this
information may now be provided to the appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal on
payment of a fresh application fee within 10 working days of the date of
receipt of such fees.
On question Nos. 5 and 6 we note that the information had already
been provided in so far as the UPSC is concerned in CPIO Shri Ashok
Mehta’s letter of 23-9-09 informing her “The Commission only recommend the
candidates to the Department concerned. Posting of recommended
6
candidates is the sole responsibility of the Department concerned”, together
with the information that,” The recommendation of 26 candidates have been
sent to the concerned department and recommendation of one candidate has
been withheld.”
These two questions are, therefore, hereby transferred to PIO Shri
Anjuman Masood, Asstt. Director, Directorate of Education, Room No. 211-B,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054 to be answered in accordance with Section 6
(1) of the RTI Act. The fee for the same has already been paid in the original
application addressed to UPSC.
The only issue that, therefore, remains outstanding is whether
withholding the information sought by appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal in question
Nos. 1 and 2 of her first appeal is lawful under the RTI Act, 2005. In this
context we have examined the ruling of this Commission in file No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/00617-SM; Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. S.C. Mishra, Col.
Offg. Brig. Admn. In this case the decision of this Commission is as follows:
5. The First Appellate Authority, instead of giving
a direct clarification/ information on the status of his
representation to the President of India and the Defence
Secretary, has quoted the submissions made by the
UPSC in a counter affidavit before the CAT. One would
have expected the First Appellate Authority to be more
forthright and state the position of the Government on his
representation rather then give a circuitous reply like this,
Primarily, the Appellant had wanted to know that if the
order of the CAT, Principle Bench, dated 08.07.2004 had
been implemented he would have been reinstated and
would have been in service when the UPSC invited
applications for regular recruitment. If he had been in
service on that date, he could have got the benefit of
relaxation of age and would not have been rejected due
to overage.
6. The order of the First Appellate Authority is not clear on
this. The case is, therefore, remanded to the First
Appellate Authority to reconsider the case and to pass a
precise and cogent order stating clearly the decision of
the concerned authorities on the representation of the
Appellant presented to the President of India. The First
Appellate Authority must dispose off this case with a
cogent order within 15 working days of the receipt of this.
The Appellant would have the right to again approach this7
Commission if he is not satisfied with the revised orders
of the First Appellate Authority.
In this context Brig. A. Banerjee Offg. Appellate Authority in an order of
10-11-08 with reference to the UPSC found as follows:
7. It is submitted that UPSC had also given reply in their
counter affidavit in response to petition filed by Dr Ashok
Kumar in CAT New Delhi wherein they have stated that
the individual was overage and relaxation of five year was
not admissible to him as he was not a Govt. Servant on
the crucial date i.e. 19.8.2004. UPSC have also
mentioned in the said affidavit that age relaxation is
allowed only as per Recruitment Rules/ Policy/
Instructions of DOP&T and good track record/ experience
are not criteria thereof. They have further stated in the
affidavit that they have to deal with thousands of
candidates in connection with different recruitment cases,
it was clearly mentioned in the advertisements publication
by UPSC that it will not generally correspond with
candidates. The individual was already apprised of the
contents of UPSC under RTI Act vide this Academy letter
No. 095271/AKS/Adhoc/ Est (Civ-5) dated 05 May 2007
in response to his applications addressed to the
President of India and Secretary, Min of Def.
The Central Information Commission has repeatedly held that if the
examination held is a public examination, as it is in this case, information held
in regard to that will not find exemption under any of the sub clauses of
Section 8 (1) and will thus not be deemed exempt from disclosure. In this
case respondents have argued that since Dr. Madhu Nagpal had not qualified
in the interview she has not been ranked. Even if there is no such rank, as
submitted by appellant Ms. Nagpal recommendations are made by order of
merit and, therefore, there must be an order of preference for making
recommendation from the wait-list. It is true that Dr. Madhu Nagpal has asked
for her rank in the result sheet, the result sheet need not be read narrowly as
the result sheet only of successful candidates but also the merit list of those
on the wait list. This wait list together with the marks obtained by the
candidates in the interview cannot, to our mind, be treated as personal
information, the disclosure of which would amount to invasion of privacy, nor
indeed can it be claimed that such information is not held in relation to any
8
public activity since a public examination as held by us above, is a public
activity.
For the above reasons we do not find the information sought by
appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal under these two questions as information that
would warrant exemption either u/s 8 (1) or 8 (2), that latter because it has not
been clarified by respondents how the disclosure of such information would
harm to any ‘protected interest’ or indeed what that protected interest might
be. For this reason the appeal is allowed. In this regard information held by
UPSC on questions 1 and 2 of the appeal made before Shri Kamal Bhagat,
JS (R-II) UPSC by appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal will now be provided to her
within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber
on this seventeenth day of August 2010. Notice of this decision be given free
of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
17-8-2010
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
17-8-2010
9