Should information about relaxation for visually challenged be given in bold prints?
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know why he was not selected in the Combined Graduate Level Examination even though he had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the visually handicapped category for the post of Tax Assistant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond the application and the appellant filed a complaint directly with the Central Information Commission (CIC).
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that the appellant failed to qualify in the data entry skills test which was a mandatory requirement. He explained that although there was a relaxation available for visually challenged persons from this test, the appellant did not produce any such claim in the Allahabad office and therefore, no such relaxation could be given to him. The appellant submitted that being visually challenged, he had not noticed the fine print and submitted his claim papers in the Allahabad office of the SSC.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the desired information should have been given without any delay and directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information. The CIC also directed him to place the facts of this case before the competent authority in the SSC so that he can take a view if the appellant on the basis of his higher marks and his entitlement to relaxation from the data entry skills test should be reconsidered and declared successful. 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 why he should not be penalized for not responding to the appellant in time.
Citation: Mr. Dharamraj v. Staff Selection Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000809
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/929
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission