Central Information Commission
Room No. 305 B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi - 110066
Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000997
CIC/SS/A/2011/000999
CIC/AT/A/2010/001017
CIC/AT/A/2010/001034
CIC/AT/A/2010/001063
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Rednam Deepak
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of the Public Authority : Vishakapatnam Port Turst.
Represented by Mr. Venu Gopal, Personnel
Officer.
The matter was heard on : 27.9.2011
ORDER
In all the abovementioned 5 cases the RTI applicant namely Shri Rednam
Deepak is the same and the Respondent is also one and the same i.e.
Vishakapatnam Port Trust. The matter is also pertains to one issue only i.e.
regarding recruitment to the post of TPO in the Vlishakapatnam Port Trust (VPT)
vide Employment Notice No. 5/99 dated 8.12.1999. Therefore the Commission
has decided to club all the 5 appeals and pass a single order.
The Appellant through the aforementioned RTI applications had sought a
copy of the mark sheet of candidates who appeared in the examination, including
question paper and answer papers and copy of mark sheets of candidates,
copy of the mark sheets of the selected candidates for interview, copies of
notings pertaining to issue of appointment letters, a copy of the selection
committee proceedings and recommendations of the selection committee,
correspondence between IIFT which conducted the examination and VPT and
documents regarding the vigilance enquiry conducted into the matter.
During the hearing the Respondent submit that the appellant has filed a
large number of RTI application on this very issue and from time to time the
Respondent have provided him information through various letters. In brief, the
position is as follows:-
Copy of mark-sheets of 14 candidates selected for interview in the
unreserved category as well as for the 5 OBC candidates selected for interview
and marks obtained by these candidates in the written test, viva-voce and
psychology test are available and have been provided to the Appellant.
Copies of correspondence between IIFT who conducted the examination
and Vishakapatnam Port Trust have been provided.
Copies of file notings for processing the selection of committee members
have been provided.
Copies of note sheets from 1.12.1999 to 1.3.2001 regarding selection and
issue of appointment orders of candidates have been provided.
Copies of offer letters/appointment letters to the 3 unreserved candidates
and 1 OBC candidate have been provided.
Copies of selection committee proceedings for unreserved and OBC
candidates have been provided.
A total number of 948 candidates appeared for the written test and except
for the 14 unreserved candidates and 5 OBC candidates who were called for
interview, the answer sheets and question papers of the remaining candidates
are not available with the Respondent and therefore have not been provided.
As per Respondent a vigilance inquiry has been conducted in respect of
these missing documents.
The PIO has not been able to provide the recommendations of selection
committee members for each candidate who appeared for interview as there is
no such practice since marks are given by the committee and not by individual
committee member.
The Respondent have also not provided the Appellant with the copy of
vigilance enquiry which was conducted by the Vigilance Department into the
question of missing papers and marks of all candidates other than 14 unreserved
candidates and 5 OBC candidates selected for interview.
After hearing the contention and on perusal of relevant documents on file,
the Commission finds that the marks and answer papers of candidates (other
than 14 unreserved candidates and 5 OBC candidates selected for interview)
have not been provided to the Appellant on the grounds that they are not
available either with the IIFT or with the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The
Appellant has also not been provided with vigilance enquiry report . Remaining
information requested by the Appellant has been provided to the Appellant
through different letters in response to his various RTI applications. Mr. Veenu
Gopal who represented the respondent during hearing informed the Commission
that while the vigilance enquiry is now complete, he does not have requisite
information whether final decision has been taken on the vigilance enquiry report
or not. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide the Appellant with
the copy of vigilance enquiry report and action taken thereon within 3 weeks of
receipt of Commission’s order.
With these directions the matter is disposed of on the part of Commission.
Sd/-
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
27.9.2011
Authenticated true copy
(K. K. Sharma)
OSD & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Mr. Rednam Deepak,
AVijay Rama Residency,
Flat No. 302, Narasimha Nagar,
Visakapatnam-530024.
A.P.
2. The P.I.O.
Secretary,
Vishakapatnam Port Trust,
General Administration Department,
Personnel Division,
Vishakapatnam-530035.
3. The First Appellate Authority,
Chairman & A A (RTI),
Vishakapatnam Port Trust,
General Administration Department,
Personnel Division,
Vishakapatnam-530035.