Seeking reasons for non- appointment by the SSC
The appellant had appeared in the examination conducted by the SSC for recruitment to the ITBP in 2011. He had secured 48 marks and had been declared fit in the medical examination but was not appointed. He found that several other candidates with the same 48 marks had been appointed. In this context, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know the reason why he was not recommended for appointment. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. The PIO advised the appellant to see the website of the SSC to find out the necessary information.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he received the first response from the PIO after six months of filing the RTI application. The appellant added that even after the direction of the FAA, the PIO took more than a month to respond to the appellant. The respondent submitted that some reply had been sent by the PIO but it had not reached the appellant.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that this is a clear cut case in which the PIO failed to provide any information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Even after the FAA passed an order directing that the information be disclosed immediately, the PIO took more than a month to respond to the appellant. The CIC held that the appellant has been put to a lot of harassment. Under section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant. Under section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why we should not impose corresponding penalty on him for his failure to provide the information in time.
Citation: Mr. Dheeraj Singh v. Staff Selection Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001918
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1384
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission