Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000950 dated 02-09-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 7 April 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena
4, Meena Colony,
Outside Gangapole Gate,
Jaipur - 302 002.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law),
(ii) Shri P.K. Modi, Assistant General Manager
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 2 September
2008, requested the CPIO for the cut-off marks of the examinations
conducted during 2007-08 and 2008-09 for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-
III as well as for marks awarded to him in those examinations. In his reply
dated 1 November 2008, the CPIO declined to disclose the information
except for the marks secured by him in the written test. Against this, he had
preferred an appeal on 18 November 2008. The Appellate Authority
dismissed his appeal after endorsing the decision of the CPIO. It is against
this order that the Appellant has come before the CIC.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Jaipur studio of the NIC whereas the Respondents were
present in our chamber. We heard their submissions. The Respondents
argued that in a similar case (KK Shoree), the order of the CIC directing
disclosure of such marks had been stayed by the Supreme Court and,
therefore, in this case also, the information should not be disclosed until
the matter got decided in the Supreme Court. We carefully considered these
submissions. We also perused the case of KK Shoree. In that case, the
applicant had asked for copies of his performance appraisal reports whereas
in this case the Appellant has asked both for the cut-off marks of the
CIC/SM/A/2009/000950
examinations held for promotion and the marks awarded to him separately
in each category in these examinations. We do not see why this information
could not be disclosed to the Appellant.
4. We therefore direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10
working days from receipt of this order the detail about the marks are the
desired by him.
5. We notice that the CPIO had responded to the Appellant nearly a
month after the expiry of the stipulated period. For this, we propose to
impose penalty on the CPIO as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, before doing so we direct the CPIO
to explain in writing within 15 working days from receipt of disorder if he
had any reasonable cause for such delay. If we do not receive his
explanation in time, we will proceed to decide on the penalty ex parte.
6. The case is, thus, disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2009/000950