Post of Technical Assistant - CIC: provide rules under which no SC/ST representative was included in Selection Committee - provide photocopies of all documents of all candidates present in interview - provide reasons why no SC candidate was found suitable
Information about selection to the post of Technical Assistant - Appellant wanted to know why no candidate belonging to the SC category was found suitable by the Committee although some of the candidates had all the requisite qualification and experience for the post - he requested for copies of all the documents filed by all candidates who were present in the interview dated - also requested to know why the selection committee selected two General Candidates in place of one -CIC: provide rules under which no SCs/STs representative was included in Selection Committee - provide photocopies of all documents of all candidates present in interview - provide reasons why no SC Candidate was found suitable
Shri Ashok Kumar hereinafter called the Appellant has filed the present appeal dated 22.01.2013 before the Commission against the respondent namely National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research (in short NIPER), Mohali (Punjab). The Appellant was not present in the hearing whereas from the Respondent side CPIO Shri Rajesh Moza (Dy.Registrar) and Shri Hardeep Singh S.O (Admin.) were present in the hearing.
2. The Appellant through the RTI application dated 7.12.2011 sought information on whether a member of the SC/ST community was a member of the Committee constituted by the Respondent for selection to the post of Technical Assistant as advertised in advertisement No: 02/2009. He also wanted to know why no candidate belonging to the SC category was found suitable by the Committee although some of the candidates had all the requisite qualification and experience for the post. He requested for copies of all the documents filed by all candidates who were present in the interview dated 21.01.2011. He also requests to know why the selection committee selected two General Candidates in place of one.
3. The CPIO has replied to the Appellant vide his letter dated 17.01.2012 informing him that no SC/ST representative was included in the Committee constituted for interviewing candidates for selection to the aforementioned post. Copies of documents were denied to the Appellant under the provision of section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005. Reasons for not finding an SC Candidate suitable for the post and reasons for selection of two General Candidates in place of one was denied u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. Aggrieved with the reply of CPIO Appellant filed a first appeal dated 21.08.2012 before the FAA in which an order has been passed by the FAA vide order No: 12 of 2012/11324 dated 25.9.2012. The FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO.
5. Being aggrieved with the reply of the FAA, Appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission.
6. Having considered the submission of both parties, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide information on Query No: 2 of the RTI application i.e. provide rules/regulations under which there is no representative of the SCs/STs in the Selection Committee of candidates for a government job. In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, the CPIO is directed to provide information on query No: 3 [i.e. photocopies of all documents (Education Qualifications, Experience Certificates and Desirable Qualifications with application form)] of all candidates which were present in interview dated 21.1.2011 against advt. No: 02/2009 for Technical Assistant in the department of Central Instrumentation Laboratory (CIL), NIPER]. The CPIO will also provide reasons why no SC Candidate was found suitable for the post reserved for the SC Category and reasons why two General Category Candidates were selected in place of one. The CPIO will also provide an updated list of all employees in the Institute, category wise belonging to SC/ST/OBC/General Category. Directions of the Commission are to be complied with within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. In this connection, the Commission also pointed out the Government mandate regarding SC / ST representative in selection committees for government jobs which has not been met by the Respondent organization. Respondent replied that now after 2011 an amended direction of the Board of Governors has been followed which provides that a member of SC/ST community must be members of selection Committee.
7. The appeal is disposed off on the part of the Commission with the above directions.
Citation: Shri Dr. Ashok Kumar v. Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research in Case No: CIC/SS/A/2013/000829