CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000269/SG/13639
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000269/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Gurparvinder Singh Randhawa
C/o Deepak Kumar
IV/2 ESI Staff Colony
Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar
Jalandhar 144001
Respondent: : Mr. N. Mukherjee
PIO & Under Secretary
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Dholpur House, New Delhi
RTI application: 24/05/2010
PIO reply: 25/06/2010
First appeal 03/07/2010
FAA order 30/07/2010
Second appeal 10/09/2010
Information sought:
I had appeared in the interview for the post of Deputy Director in ESIC.Please supply to me the following
Information under the RTI Act regarding the selection process for the post of Deputy Director in ESIC
(Spl Advt. no SO/2O09).
1. The final result was declared of 66 candidates whereas the advertisement (SpI Advt
50/2009) had invited applications for 71 posts. Why has the result for the remaining 5 posts not declared?
2. What were the selection criteria for the selection of candidates, a copy of the same may also be supplied
to me
3. Maximum marks for written examination
4. Maximum marks for interview
5. In respect of those candidate who have appeared in the interviews kern 12-23 April
2010 please give me the following required information in the manner below
S. No Name of candidate category marks obtained marks attained
in written exam in interview
PIO’s reply:
1. Result in respect of three posts has been kept in abeyance due to court cases while two posts belonging
to OBC community remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates in the consideration zone.
2. Selection is done by recruitment test followed by interviews.
3&4. The maximum marks for Written Test and Interview are 100 each.
5. The information relating to marks scored by other candidates is in the nature of ‘personal information’
which does not contain any element of public activity or interest and the same cannot be shared being
exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for First appeal:
Refusal of information for point 5 not valid.
FAA order:
3. The appellant in point No.5 had wanted to know names, category, marks in written test and marks in
interview of the candidates appeared in the interview for the post of Dy. Director in ESIC. The CPIO,
UPSC refused to provide the information on the ground that the information relating to marks scored by
other candidates is in the nature of personal information which does not contain any element of public
activity & interest and the same cannot be shared being exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act,
2005. While agreeing with the stand taken by the CPIO, the appellant is also informed that the results of
three posts have not yet been declared because of pending court cases. Moreover, the information asked
for by the appellant can be shared only after three years from the date of finalization of final result.
Grounds for Second appeal:
Improper denial of information on point 5.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. N. Mukherjee, PIO & Under Secretary;
The respondent states that UPSC has now decided to provide all the information which was sought
by the Appellant. He states that this has been sent to the Appellant on 08/07/2011. The Commission is
taking a copy of the information sent to the Appellant and sending it to him with this order.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records appears to have been provided.
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
25 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RU)