Appellant was prevented from appearing at SBI clerk examination on the basis of X/XII admit card - Respondent: why the appellant was not allowed to appear in the examination does not fall under the definition of information - CIC: appeal rejected

Appellant claimed that he was prevented from appearing at the SBI clerk examination on the ground that the admit card that he used for appearing in the class X and class XII examination of CBSE could not be used for establishing his identity - Respondent: in the RTI application it was merely asked why he was not allowed to appear in the examination and the PIO had replied that it did not fall under the definition of information as per 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; “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; - the call letters were issued to all the candidates appearing in the examination and that there were 8 documents prescribed for entry into the examination hall - the listed documents did not include the document that the appellant is referring to - CIC: appeal rejected  

ORDER

RTI application:

1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 03.07.2012 seeking information pertaining to a certain bank clerk examination.

2. The PIO responded on 18.07.2012 and informed 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; “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 that the information sought does not fall under definition of "information". The appellant filed a first appeal on 09.08.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not available on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 09.11.2012 with the Commission.

Hearing:

3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 03.07.2012 and stated that he wants to get information on one single point, i.e., whether the admit card valid for admitting students to the class X and class XII exam of CBSE was sufficient for admitting candidates appearing in the SBI bank clerk examination of 2012.

5. The appellant stated that he was prevented from appearing at the SBI clerk examination of 03.06.2012 on the ground that the admit card that he used for appearing in the class X and class XII examination of CBSE could not be used for establishing his identity. The appellant stated that the same document was regarded as valid in other examination center but in the examination centers where he had appeared, i.e., Bharti Shiksha Mandir Inter College, Englishia Line, Varanasi, this was not regarded as valid. The appellant stated that this is a clear case of adhocism and which resulted in his not being able to appear for the exam despite the fact that he had the admit card for class X and class XII CBSC exam to establish his identity.

6. The respondent stated that what the appellant is now saying in the hearing is not borne out by the RTI application. The respondent stated that in the RTI application he has asked why he was not allowed to appear in the examination and taking this into account, the CPIO on 18.07.2012 has responded by saying that the information sought did not fall under the definition of information as stated in the RTI Act, 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; “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; .

7.The respondent further stated that the call letters were issued to all the candidates appearing in the examination and that there were 8 documents listed. These documents had been prescribed for entry into the examination hall. The respondent stated that the documents that were listed did not include the documents that the appellant is referring to.

8. The respondent stated that the appellant already knows which are these 8 documents as these were listed in the call letter. In view of this no further information was to be provided.

Decision:

9. No action is required at the level of the Commission taking into account para 8 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Chandar Kumar v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000012/05401