Written test conducted for the recruitment of clerks’ grade - minimum cut off marks provided - FAA modified his order when he came to know that the appellant’s candidature had been cancelled for use of unfair means - results of such candidates are not ann
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 2692011 seeking information on the written test conducted for the recruitment of clerks’ grade in the bank during the year 200910 and related issues. 2. The CPIO responded on 18102011, providing some information to the appellant. The CPIO further stated that the appellant was caught using unfair means in the examination and his candidature was cancelled. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 5112011. The FAA responded on 19112011 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 14122011 in a second appeal.
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant participated in the hearing personally and stated that he had appeared in the clerical grade examination of SBI during 200910 and he wanted information on the following:
(i) Were the results of the examination announced on the website and the mobiles of the candidates?
(ii) Were the candidates informed of the results by 11.10.2010?
(iii) What was the result of the appellant?
(iv) What were the rules under which the FAA had changed his decision taking into account that the FAA had given his first decision on 4.2.2011?
(v) Why was the order of the FAA not complied with?
4. The respondent stated that the appellant’s questions can be put into two groups:
(1) about his own candidature and the results of the examination and
(2) about the FAA having altered his decision.
5. The respondent stated on the first point that the fact is that the appellant was indulging in unfair practices and hence his candidature was cancelled according to the bank rules. In so far as the second point is concerned, the respondent stated that the FAA’s first response was based on the fact as was then known to him, but later when the FAA came to know that the appellant’s candidature had been cancelled on grounds of indulging in unfair means, he modified his order.
6. The respondent stated that there was nothing wrong in modifying the order once the correct facts came to the knowledge of the FAA. The respondent stated that in any case, this was not information under section 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.
7. The respondent further stated that in so far as one of the questions in the RTI application is concerned, i.e., what was the minimum cut off marks, response to that question has been provided by the CPIO.
8. The appellant stated that it is wrong for the respondent to state that his result was not announced because he had got a response on his own mobile phone that he had failed in the examination. The appellant said that if he had got a response on his mobile, then how can the respondent say that his candidature was not considered.
9. The respondent stated that the position of the bank is that the candidature of those indulging in unfair practices ought to be cancelled and their results are not announced because they have not been considered. In so far as the appellant’s contention about the result coming on his mobile is concerned, the respondent stated that they have nothing further to say because the appellant’s candidature had not been considered at all.
10. The respondent has taken action in conformity with the RTI Act. No intervention is required at the level of the Commission.
11. The decision of the FAA is upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Varun Bhardwaj v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000859/04085