CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00874 dated 19-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar
Respondent: Union Public Serves Commission (UPSC)
FACTS
By an application of 30-3-07 received on 2-4-07 Shri Surendra Kumar
of Pitampura, Delhi applied to Shri Vasumitra, CPIO & JS (Exam.) UPSC
seeking the following information:
“(A) Number of candidates recruited year wise for various post
(whose result declared after 2.7.1997). Since 1997 to
March 2007 in following format and number of candidates
who passed the various exams without relaxation and
finally selected by UPSC for appointment.
Format for supplying the information is given in Annexure-1.
The information’s may please be supplied in format (Annexure –
1) for years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, 2006 and 2007 (till March). The list of exams given in the
format. In addition to examinations mentioned in Annexure-1, if
any other examination has been conducted by UPSC for direct
recruitment during year from 1997 to March 2007, the
information may also be supplied in format given in Annexure-1.
(B) UPSC also conducts the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination for promotion for various post or
various departments. The details of numbers of
candidates selected on the basis of such examination
may please furnished in the format (Annexure-1) for the
period from July 1997 to March 2007.
(C) SC, ST and OBC Candidates selected on the merit basis
(without relaxation) will occupy general point in the roster,
whether the names of such candidates has been
informed to the concerned department specifically
mentioning that those particulars candidates belongs to
SC/ST/OBC category qualified the exam on merit basis
not on relaxed standard?
(1) If names has been informed in case of direct
recruitments to various department as requested in
above “C”. The name of examination, post,
category, name of candidates may please be1
supplied for a period July 1997 to March 2007 in
format Annexure-II.
(2) Similar information as requested in C (1) above
may also be supplied for candidates selected on
the basis of limited departmental competitive
examination or a period July 1997 to March 2007
in Annexure -II.
(D) In case names of such reserved category candidates who
passed the examination for direct recruitment and limited
departmental competitive examination on their merit
(without availing any relaxation) not informed to
concerned department that they have passed the exam
on their merit. Such candidates will be adjusted on
reserved point in the roster and it will be against the
Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in case of R. K.
Sabharwal vs. State Of Punjab and J. C. Malik vs.
Ministry of Railway. It will be contrary to instruction
issued by DOP&T vide Office memorandum No.
36012/2/96- Restt (Res) dated 2/7/97 and dated
11.7.2002. In view of above following may please be
furnished.
(1) Reason for not intimating the names of reserved
category candidate who have passed the
examination for direct recruitment and limit
departmental competitive examination on their own
merit (Without availing any relaxation) to the
concerned department.
(2) Name and designation of official responsible for
this act of omission in various exams during year
1997 to 2007, may please be intimated.
(3) In present situation/ circumstances what remedial
action can be taken so that reserved candidates
who passed the exam on own merit shall occupy
general point, not the reserve points.
(E) The Govt. intentions are very clear, as Govt. wants to
increase the representation of SC, St and OBC category
beyond fixed percentage i.e. reserve candidate who
qualify the exam on the basis of their own merits will be
adjusted against unreserved points (General point) and
who will qualify the exam on basis of relaxed standard,
they will occupy the reserve points as per DOP&T OM
dated 2.7.1997. There are very much chances that some
of UPSC official who does not want that number of
reserve category candidates (SC/ST/OBC) shall go
beyond 50% even if they qualify the examination on their
own merit without availing any relaxation, whatever may
be the Govt. Instructions or Hon’ble Supreme Court
2
Judgement, they will peruse their own agenda by will full
act of omission.
As per DOP&AR OM No. 36011/7/80-Estt (SCT) dated 1.11.80
and OM No. 41016/4/93-Est (SCT) dated 15.3.1993 is clearly
instructed that “Glaring instances of discrimination or deliberate
in fraction of orders relating to reservation and concessions in
favour of SC/ST in any office or establishment should
immediately brought to notice of appropriate authority for
suitable action. Ministries/ department/ authorities should
ensure that whenever the cases of such nature are brought to
their notice of appropriate authorities, suitable action is also
taken promptly. It is further instructed that suitable action
initiated against officials for deliberate negligence and lapses in
the matter of following reservation and other orders relating to
SC/ST.
(1) In view of above DOP&T OM dated 1.11.80 and 15.3.93,
action proposed against official responsible for deliberate
in fraction of order related to reservation and concession
in favour of SC/ST by way of wilful omission may please
be intimated.
(2) Clear instruction is given in above DOP&T OM dated
1.11.80 and 15.3.2007 for immediate action against
erring officials. Time frame for taking the action may
please be intimated.”
To his he received a response dated 1.5.07 from Shri Ataur Rahman,
Dy. Secretary and CPIO, UPSC as follows:
“Para (A) Available information in respect of following
Examinations is enclosed as Annexure-1.
(i) Civil Service Exam.
(ii) Engineering Service Exam.
(iii) Indian Forest Services Exam.
(iv) Geologist Exam.
(v) Central Police forces Exam.
(vi) IES/ ISS Exam.
(vii) CMS Exam.
(viii) SCRA Exam.
It may be noted that for the Combined Defence Services and
NDA & NA Exams, there are no provisions of reservations for
SC/ST/OBC candidates.
Para (B): Information sought for cannot be divulged being
personal & third party information in nature and no public
interest is served thereby3
Para (C): The result of an examination forwarded to the
nodal Ministry/ Dep’t. for allocation, is indicative of
information regarding reserved Category candidates
qualified on General Merit. Further responsibility of
maintaining vacancy rosters and placement of those
candidates in such rosters is done by the Cadre
Controlling Authority after the allocation of recommended
candidates.
Para (D): Question regarding the requisite information does
not arise in view of reply to Para (C ) above.
Para (E): Since this Para contains some baseless
allegations against the Commission, in view of the fact
that the Commission conducts its Examinations and
follow the provisions of reservations contained in the
Examination Rules in its letter and spirit, this Para needs
no reply.”
However on not having received the response till 14.5.2007 appellant
moved his first appeal before the First Appellate Authority, UPSC on that date.
First Appellate Authority Shri V. P. Singh, JS (E), UPSC in his order of
28.5.2007 examined this matter and found that the response has actually
been sent. In consequence he found that the appeal “no longer sustains. A
copy of the reply dated 1-5-07 from the CPIO, UPSC to the appellant,
nonetheless, is enclosed for his reference.”
Appellant Shri Surendra Kumar’s prayer before us in his second
appeal is as follows:-
“1) CPIO may be directed to supply all the information’s
as requested in my RTI Application dated 30.3.2007.
2) PIO is refusing to give the information taking wrong
Shelter or third party ignoring importance of public
interest. CPIO failed to supply the information as
well reply to my letter dated 22.5.2007 within 30 days.
Necessary penalty may be imposed for their callous
attitude toward public.
3) PIO has failed to supply the information within
prescribed time limit of 30 days and giving
misleading reply regarding third party as Para (B) and
incomplete & misleading reply on Para (C ). No
proper reply on Para (D) & (E) has been given by PIO.
CIC may recommend disciplinary action against the
PIO and Appellate Authority.”
4
The appeal was heard on 27-11-08. The following are present.
Respondents
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate.
Shri M Mukhopadhyay, Under Secretary, UPSC.
Shri T. C. Naulak, SO, UPSC.
Although informed of the date of the hearing through our letter dated
17.11.2008 appellant Shri Surendra Kumar opted not to be present.
DECISION NOTICE
We find the reasons for delay in receipt of the information supplied by
CPIO Shri Ataur Rehman stands reasonably explained in the orders of First
Appellate Authority. Appellant Shri Surendra Kumar in a petition of 6.6.2007 to
First Appellate Authority Shri V. P. Singh has stated that the information
supplied by CPIO is incomplete. However, he has made no first appeal with
regard to this information supplied, with the result that in responding to this
petition Shri V. P. Singh through his letter of 20.6.2007 has informed the
appellant that since appeal made by him had already been disposed of
“nothing more remained to be decided”.
In his second appeal before us Shri Surendra Kumar has not specified
any shortcomings that he has found in the CPIO’s reply. This question has
also not been addressed by the First Appellate Authority. If not satisfied with
the response received from the CPIO, a matter which he has not questioned
through a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority, it was open to
appellant Shri Surendra Kumar to move a fresh first appeal u/s 19 (1), since
that recourse has not been exhausted on grounds of the information supplied
to him, the earlier appeal having only been with regard to late receipt of
information, a question that stands disposed of by first appellate authority Shri
VP Singh.
Under the circumstances we find no substance in this appeal, which is
hereby dismissed, since there is no order of the 1st appellate authority that it
contests. Shri Surendra Kumar may make a first appeal to First Appellate
5
Authority Shri V. P. Singh, JS (E), UPSC u/s 19(1) of the Act, and if not
satisfied with the response in 1st appeal it will be open to him to move a
second appeal afresh before us u/s 19 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
27-11-2008
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
27-11-2008
6