CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001973/9393
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001973
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Arvin Kumar Jaiman
C/o Lokesh Tiwadi
C-80, J.P Colony,
Imliwala Fatak
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
Respondent : Mr. B. D. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Additional Commissioner
Employees’ State Information Corporation
Panchdeep Bhavan, C.I.G Road,
New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 06/01/2010
PIO replied : 04/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 25/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 27/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 13/05/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Specify as to which formula was Candidates were selected on the basis of the marks obtained
used in the final selection process. by them in the interview. Screening test was conducted to
select the candidates. No rule for selection has been made for
the marks obtained in the screening test. Final selection is
one on the basis of marks obtained in the interview.
2. Specify as to what was the cut off The final cut off lists of all the categories is as follows
limit in the final selection process? UR-76, OBC-68, SC-60.
3. Mention the marks obtained by the The marks obtained by the candidate in the written test are
appellant in the written 86.
examination?
4. Mention the marks obtained by the The marks obtained by the candidate in the interview are 65.
appellant in the interview
5. Provide the name, gender and The list of the selected candidates is enclosed.
category of the selected candidates.
6. Please provide the written copy of This information can’t be made available as per S.8 (1) (g) &
waiting list along with the cut off list (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
if any.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA reiterated the PIO’s statement.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Arvin Kumar Jaiman on video conference from NIC-Jaipur Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Raj Kanwal on behalf of Mr. B. D. Sharma, Public Information Officer & Additional
Commissioner;
The PIO states that they have realized the error in refusing to give information on query-6 earlier and have
sent the information to the appellant on 14 September 2010. The PIO has provided the cutoff marks that
were used. The appellant however feels that the cutoff marks may have been different for the reserved list
candidates. The PIO will inform the appellant if this is so. The PIO will inform the appellant the cutoff
marks for the reserved list even if this is same for the other candidates.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before
30 September 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN)
Page 2 of 2