Information regarding the post of Education Officer/Assistant Directorate of Ed. like the criteria adopted for selection, marks, whether the advertisement was cancelled etc. - CIC: Inform in terms of which the advertisement was cancelled & reinstated

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.04.2019 seeking information regarding advt. No. 02/2010 to 23.01/2010 for the post of Education Officer/Assistant Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, including interalia;

(1) “How many applications were received in response to above advertisement?

(2) How many candidates appeared in the written test conducted for selection to the above post?

(3) Total number of candidates (category wise) called for interview in R/O of above post.

(4) What was the criteria adopted by the UPSC to short list candidates for interview?

(5) Total number of candidates appeared before the interview board?

(6) Total number of candidates finally selected against the above advertisement.

(7) What was the criteria adopted by the UPSC for making final selection of the candidates?

(8) Whether the above advertisement was cancelled by the UPSC before making final selection? If yes please provide the cancellation order.

(9) If the advertisement was reinstated after cancellation please provide the copy of relevant order?

(10) Provide detailed Result/Marks/weight age in RIO all candidates appeared in written test/interview and finally recommended for selection.

(11) Whether any case, in regards to above advertisement, is pending before court of law? If yes please provide full details?

(12)Provide copy of all orders /advertisement/notice in regards to above post issued by UPSC from initial advt. to till date.”

The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 13.05.2019. Being dissatisfied with the point Nos. 4 & 7, 8 & 9, 10 & 12, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.06.2019. FAA’s order dated 04.07.2019 directed the CPIO against point Nos. 8 & 9 and also furnished the reply against point Nos. 4& 7, 10 & 12 to the appellant stated as follows:-

Point no. 4 & 7 : The criteria is as per Advertisement for the mentioned post. Recruitment test followed by interview of the candidates shortlisted through the Recruitment test, subject to eligibility. As regards cut off marks, this is a new piece of information, not originally sought in the RTI application. Such fresh queries cannot be entertained at appeal stage

Point no.8 & 9 : Copies of orders were provided earlier. However, CPIO is directed that clear copies, if available, may once again be provided to the appellant. Point no.10 &12 Data not compiled as a record for disclosure under RTI Act, 2005."

In compliance with FAA’s order, CPIO on 04.07.2019 provided clear copies against point Nos. 8 & 9 to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with non-receipt of desired information on points 4,7,8,9,10 & 12 of the RTI Application, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio conference.

Respondent: Shailesh Kumar Jha, US & CPIO present through audio conference.

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 4,7,8,9,10 & 12 of the RTI Application.

The CPIO submitted that the averred recruitment was initially advertised for 20 posts, subsequently, due to some reservation issues, the same was withdrawn and later revived and all these details are also available in the public domain. He further submitted that the Appellant was provided the copies of the available orders twice and before the hearing, even the category-wise cut-off marks has been provided to supplement the information about the criteria of selection provided to him earlier. He furthermore submitted that the marks obtained by the finally recommended candidates has also been provided to the Appellant.

The Appellant contended that the criteria of selection provided to him is not satisfactory, and argued that the CPIO is repeatedly providing the copy of the cancellation order of the averred advertisement, while he has sought for the details of the records where the decision to cancel the initial advertisement was taken. He further stated that even the marks scored by him as sought for at point no 10 of the RTI Application has not been provided to him.

The CPIO pointed out that the Appellant has sought for the marks of the finally recommended candidates on point no.10 of the RTI Application and the same has been provided to him.

Decision

The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that given the interrogatory nature of the information sought for at points no. 4,7,8,9 & 12 of the RTI Application, whatever limited scope of relief was pertinent in the matter on the basis of the original reply of the CPIO, same has been adequately addressed by the CPIO vide his revised reply dated 19.04.2021.

Nonetheless, having considered the insistence of the Appellant during the hearing, the CPIO is directed to revisit points no. 8, 9 & 12 of the RTI Application and provide any additional information that may be available in terms of the basis on which the advertisement under reference was cancelled and reinstated. If no such additional information is available on record, a categorical statement to this effect shall be stated in the CPIO’s reply. Similarly, according a liberal interpretation to query no.10 of the RTI Application, the CPIO is directed to provide the available information regarding the marks obtained by the Appellant to him.

The aforesaid information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

The aforesaid information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Tota Ram v. Union Public Service Commission in File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2019/646645, Date of Decision: 22/04/2021