Rajeev Kumar (Professioanl Social worker) 16 October 2010

The negligent and biased decision of CIC

Dear All

In December 2007, SAIL advertised 400 posts for management trainee ( technical) and 100 Management trainees ( Administration)
I was interested to join SAIL, and I was eligible for applying for Management trainee (counselling). Therefore I applied for the post of MT ( Management Trainee ) (counselling )
Written test was conducted for both categories of posts on 10 February 2008. But the result of Management Trainee (Technical) was declared in June 2008 and interview was conducted in the same month and final result was declared just after one month in July 2008.
Result of written test of Management Trainee (Administration) was declared in October 2008 and interview was conducted on 13-14 November 2008 at Delhi and Kolkata.
On the 13 November 2008 at Delhi, during group discussion it was found that, none of topic was based on mental health issues in industry or related topic, while it was focused on general administrative problems of employee. Even in personal interview, none of question was asked related to mental health intervention.
While the post of MT (A) Counselling was meant for dealing with behavioural problems of employee.
After the personal interview, as per suggestion given by SAIL authority, I was regularly checking the website of SAIL for the final result. When even after one year passed but the final result of MT (A) was not declared , then one my friend Prveen Kambley filed RTI application to SAIL for getting information about the exact status of result.
In the response of RTI application, SAIL disclosed the information that the final result of MT (A) was already declared in March 2009. And all selected candidates had joined. But the final result of MT (A) was never displayed on SAIL website.
It seemed very unusual that the result of 100 advertised posts were not declared in public media (neither in Newspaper nor on website of SAIL).

While on regular course, SAIL website displays result of all recruitment, including the recruitment through walk-in-interview and the recruitment of few posts of specialist or posts of group “D” employees. Had I not filed the RTI application, I would have been deprived to know the actual result of applied MT (A). SAIL being as Public authority failed to be transparent about the result of MT (A)

On 4th December 2009, I had filed RTI application to SAIL Corporate office seeking information related to selection of Management Trainee (Administration) advertised in December 2007

I had sought information about over all marks of selected candidates, Institutes, Degree, specialization and exposure to mental health set up of selected candidates. Because all selected candidates has to deal with behavioural problems of employees. I had also sought the qualification, designation and details of member/ expert in interview board. I had also sought for if any member/expert was related to mental health field / mental health professional. I had also sought the reason for non-display of final result of MT(A)

On 4^th January 2010, appellant received the reply from SAIL office vide letter No: PERS/RTI/CO/09/440 dated December 30, 2009. The reply of SAIL authority in mentioned letter was inadequate and unsatisfactory.

This time there was shocking news, in MT (A) only 13 candidates were selected, while there was 100 candidates were supposed to get selected. in MT (A) counselling only 3 candidates were selected, while as per advertisement 18 MT (A) counselling were supposed to get selected.
SAIL did not provide me the marks and degree/specialization of selected candidates, stating that it was confidential u/s 8(i) (j) and third party information. SAIL also denied providing me the details of members/ expert in Interview board stating the same reason as third party and confidential.

But SAIL disclosed that there was not any mental health professional in interview board, while they were recruiting only mental health professional. It was the irony of interview board.

While we all know that third party information and confidential information u/s 8 (i) (j) are quite different things. In third party information u/s 11, there is particular process as to obtain consent from third party. All the process of third party must be recorded and copy of letter must also be sent to appellant. I never received the copy of process under section 11.

Another thing, marks of candidates are not confidential they can be disclosed, as held by various CIC/SIC decisions. In my first and second appeal I had cited those CIC/SIC references. But all those references were also neglected.

I was aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, then I filed the First Appeal under section 19(1) RTI-2005 against the SAIL office vide letter No: PERS/RTI/CO/09/440 dated December 30, 2009

Vide letter no: PERS/RTI/CO/09/65/ dated 4^th march 2010 received on 8 March 2010, I received the reply of first appeal. First Appellate authority upheld the decision of PIO; and thus FAA did not supply the sought information to appellant. in addition FAA stated that “ explanation not being information can not be provided under RTI”
Aggrieved by the decision of FAA, I filed the second Appeal before commission on 3^rd June 2010.
On 28^th August I received the Notice of hearing from CIC. Hearing was scheduled on 10^th September 2010. At last it was took place on 21^st September 2010. I was not present on hearing. I was expecting that CIC will give decision in my favour. CIC will direct SAIL to provide me sought information within 15 days. Because what ever information I had sought from SAIL, it was disclosable under RTI act. Now days even copy of answer scriptt can be obtained under RTI act. Details of marks are very common among information seekers.
But the CIC gave the decision in the favour of SAIL it self. CIC in its decision held that SAIL provide all information point wise to me. Only they did not provide me Third party information.
Means, CIC also considered that Marks and other Educational/ employment detail (not personal detail) and official detail of expert /members of Interview board were third party detail.
SAIL also did not display the final result of MT (A) on its official website. SAIL gave the reason that it was not mandatory. While various CIC decision has geld that every action of public authority must be reason and it should be transparent to all.
Since the recruitment process of MT (A) SAIL did not keep it transparent, therefore I doubted on recruitment process. I had hoped that at least CIC will favour me and direct SAIL to provide me sought information. If SAIL would have provided me the sought information, I would have exposed some loop holes and suspected corruption in SAIL recruitment process.
On September 10, I had filed one more RTI application on SAIL seeking the details (over all marks, category, Degree, specialization, work experience) of appeared and selected candidates. In the first week of October I received the reply from SAIL. Once again SAIL withhold the education details of appeared /selected candidates and did not provide me the sought information. And this time SAIL got the support from the decision of CIC.
SAIL is reluctant to disclose the detail of Recruitment process.
Now I have only one option to challenge the CIC decision in High court, but my financial condition is not good enough to hire an advocate.
You can see that it took around one year in all process; I got mentally harassed in this process. It was the question of my career. But I got defeated. My all hard work turned in to nothing
Kindly see the decision of CIC

https://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...10_M_42647.pdf

I am attaching the copy of my Second appeal. Kindly review my case and give me your comments

Thanks and regards

Rajeev Kumar

Reply Follow

16 Replies

R.Ramachandran (Advocate) 16 October 2010

Dear Mr. Rajeev Kumar,

I am attending this query since you have asked for comments.

I have completely gone through your Second Appeal.

Let me give my views on each of the questions posed by you in the second appeal:

1. Question 1 -You have sought explanation for non-publishing of the results in the Website. Calling for explanation will fall under the category of "interrogatory" and not "information" and as such it is not allowable under RTI.

2. Question 2 - You asked for the list of selected candidates and the information was made available to you. But you are wondering why only 13 persons have been selected as against 100 posts advertised. You are asking for reason for reduction in number of candidates selected. THE AUTHORITIES NEED NOT GIVE ANY REASON (again it does not fall under the category of "information" but falls under the ambit of "interrogation" / "explanation"). Why reduction, even if they did not select a single candidate, or scrap the entire interview and abandon the recruitment, it is their prerogative and one cannot question it, and especially under RTI.

3. Question 3 - You have asked for list of selected candidates and also their particulars like marks obtained etc. etc. The names of 3 selected candidates was made available. But according to you since the number of candidates to be called for written test / interview should be in the ratio of 1:4; when 72 candidates were called for written test / interview they should have selected 18 candidates and not 3. There is absolutely no logic for this assumption by you. In fact, as stated earlier, they could have rejected all the candidates, if found not suitable. As regards the non-furnishing of information regarding marks obtained etc., I do not think that it may qualify as third party information.

The points 3.9 and 3.10 that working experience in mental health is a valid point for deciding the capabilities of candidates, can at best be your view point.

4. Question 4 – Seeking the information regarding the list of expert in the panel of interview – I think the view taken by the authorities is correct – if the experts who were in the interview panel could be disclosed, then the persons who were correcting the answer sheets of written examination can also be disclosed. Normally it is a sensitive information and need not be disclosed at all. According to me the protection sought under sec. 8(1)(d) appears to be correct.

5. Question 5 – For your question they have answered that there was no person in the interview panel who is expert in mental health issues. For your second limb of the query viz., give valid reason – again the authority is not supposed to give any explanation or reason – they are only supposed to give the information, which they have given. I do not think you have any valid issue.

6. Question 6 – If there was not any expert in mental health issues, they how it was possible for interview panel to assess the capacity of candidates? - Again it is in the nature of “interrogation” and not in the form of “information”. Authorities are not expected to give explanation / reason under RTI.

7. Question 7 - Your appeal does not give any point except stating that marks of appellant were given.

8. Question 8 – What were the parameters decided in personal interview and how applicant was not qualified in personal interview. - It was disclosed that a candidate is recruited as per merit based on the performance in written, group discussion and interview. – You say that parameters in personal interview should have been disclosed. It is humanly impossible – for unlike in the written test where the question would be uniform – the personal interview would take within its ambit several things.

9. Question 9 – Whether extra qualification and essential equalization MSW … was given extra weightage. The Answer given was “NO”, The qualification was relevant for eligibility purpose”. According to me the information sought by you has been given. But you go on to say that … extra qualification / work experience etc. etc. should be counted and you also quote SC ruling. But they are not in the realm of “information”. If they have not counted it is your grievance and for that you can take action, but certainly you cannot say that they should take such consideration into account. In that case it will not be “information” but imposition of your view points on the Authority.

10. Question 10 – If answer is “YES” give valid explanation and if answer is “NO” then also give valid explanation.

As already indicated herein above, the authority is expected to give information under RTI and not any explanation or reason.

(Guest)

Adv. Ramchandran, thanks to you for your positive response to needy people.

Dear Mr. rajeev, I would have sought like this; "I want to observe all the files / documents related with --- matter and I will submit my requirement of copies of the same after observation" and I would have asked for copies of all documents. Never expose own interest and show it as you are working in general for society. Be ever cool and strategic.

1 Like

(Guest)

Adv. Ramchandran, thanks to you for your positive response to needy people.

(Guest)

Dear All

It is CICs through their contradictory judgements on providing answer sheets of any exams once the procedure to select or to promote or to pass or fail of the students should be provided. Earlier ACRs as well as selection board procedings were also being denied citing Sec 8 ( 1) (j). Some of the CICs have allowed and others had given directly opposite verdicts .

Secondly SAIL is a PSU . It is not somebody's POP's property. What ever parameters are set to select or reject a candidate must be known to each and every Indian . Where is the question of PSU officials 's discretionery power in this regards.

Are not not taking RTI movement backwards by supporting those IAS.com in their efforts to deny every info . In my view whatever the English ( english is a foreign language ) the demand / query was crystal clear. CIC had done a dis-service to the cause of RTI movements and be condemned.

Regards

Haridas

R.Ramachandran (Advocate) 16 October 2010

Dear Mr. Haridas,

Here we are analysing the specific RTI appeal prepared by Mr. Rajeev Kumar.

Instead of being generalistic in your comment, it would help the Forum if you could legally analyse the existing provisions in the RTI Act, and offer your specific views on each and every ground taken by Mr. Rajeev. It will help Mr. Rajeev as well as other members like me to appreciate various ways of interpreting the provisions.

We are not talking about whether it is the IAS officer who does anything, whether SAIL is POP etc. etc. Again talking about whether such decisions would take the RTI Act backwords or forwards are all academic discussions.

(Guest)

Dear Adv Ramchandran

I am not a lawyer and hence not expected to illegalities of the verdict already delivered by the hon'ble judge. Simply speaking our interpretation of the judgement already delivered by a judge of the high court is of no use. Even if appeal is made to Supreme Court and verdict is reversed after 22.5 years , it will cause no embarassment to that hon'ble High Court Judge a bit.

What I am trying to highlight that answersheets are supposed to be made available to the applicant. And anybody denies that must be severely punished by the CIC. But we have a very unfortunate developoment here. The IAS.com have hi-jacked the Info commission, Yourlorsheeps are not themselves very happy with RTI Act taking the Judiciary head on ( disclosure of the Assets by the Judges) and community of practicing Advocates are not comfortable with the RTI activists as info is being obtained at a cost of Rs 10.

In this scenario it is the locunae in the RTI Acts if any to be removed. Specific analysis of the points raised post verdict is absollutely inessential.

Anyway thanks for the comments.

Regards

Haridas

R.Ramachandran (Advocate) 18 October 2010

Dear Mr. Haridas,

Thanks for your posting. While you have every right to express your views in the Forum, but unless you are going to specifically answer a question posed in a thread, then one sould open a separate thread to express their view points. So that the question thread remains unpolluted, and people who want to specifically contribute to the question thread with their legal answers can contribute unhindered and it will also enable others to follow the logic behind every one's postings. Interjecting the thread with some one's views without any legal basis would only make a rude digression, which should be best avoided.

(Guest)

Dear Adv Ramachandran

I think you are right. I should resist temptation of posing myself as all knowing.

Thanks & Regards

Haridas

Mukund (PA) 08 November 2010

I have also suffered in same manner by CIC after one year CIC has given direction to submit fresh list for information to Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd, a Joint Venture of SAIL & DVC, B S City after fresh submision still they have denied to provide the information and CIC also said that the case was disposed off from their side. (CIC Vikas Taparia vs BPSCL)

Mukund

Rajeev Kumar (Professioanl Social worker) 08 November 2010

Dear Mr Mukund

Now after your case it has been topic for debate . The role of CIC is now suspected. I feel it can be influenced easily...

Even in my case, I had filed fresh RTI application, But again SAIL denied to provide information citing it confidential and third party

the sum of all the purpose of RTI suffered.... Corruption hold victroy over RTI.. RTI will die slow death

In the name of RTI citizens are suffering

Rajeev

Rajeev Kumar (Professioanl Social worker) 07 December 2010

Dear Adv Ramchandran

You have analysed my case very deeply. According to you, many of my sought informations were in for of either in form of question or in interrogatory form.

Well!!! it would be a new topic of debate : question versus information. But in my case, even you are agreed that many of my sought informations doesn't fall in to category of third party information. As CIC cited and dismissed my case.

You believe me .... If I could have get the desired information, I could have exposed the irregaualrity and illegal appointment in SAIL.

But SAIL authority were knowing that they also influenced the CIC and I remained deprived of information. Ultimately I suffered and did not get justice.

Now I want to attract your kind attention toward U/S 4 (1) (d) of RTI act that says that public authority are liable to give reason to affected person.

Kindly go through Supreme court judgement

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2900 of 2007 dated 15/06/2007 Hon'ble Apex court observed that

Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration".

In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice".

viewing above stated judgement ... how come I was wrong in seeking information...

whether it was not injustice ?????

reply me...

Regards

Rajeev

R.Ramachandran (Advocate) 07 December 2010

Dear Mr. Rajeev,

Please understand that the RTI Act only enables the citizens to seek 'INFORMATION'. It does not allow the citizens the right to seek 'REASONS'. Thus, while the Public Authorities are obliged to make available the 'information' - except in respect of those that they may claim exceptions as provided under the Act, they are NOT AT ALL OBLIGED TO PROVIDE ANY REASON.

The decision of the supreme court cited by you 'Daya Ram v. Raghunath & Ors' Civil Appeal No. 2900/2007 relates to LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES - OTHERS and certainly does not deal with RTI ACT at all. As such, linking the decision of the Apex Court out of context to the RTI Act is not at all correct.

Similarly, the observations / decisions of Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) has no application to the RTI Act at all, since RTI Act it self was not in existence at the relevant point of time, and more over the observations / decisions are not made in the context of RTI Act.

The problem is you are emotionally attached with the issue and hence you some how want to connect unconnected things. I am only seeing things from legal perspective, without any emotional attachment whatsoever.

Rajeev Kumar (Professioanl Social worker) 08 December 2010

Dear Adv Ramchandaran

With reference to your arguement. First of all i want to state that I tried not to lose the objectivity, but I am aware that I was subjected to injustice. Somewhere I lacked the means to favour my self.

Even you are aware that in our country Things are made deliberetly right.

Your raised point is this above decision of supreme court was not made in context of RTI.

then please telll..... in what context reasons are sought????.... you are aware that the basic definition of democracy.... FOR THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE... then why public authority think that thye are authorized/ dictated by public...... what is wrong in it.... becuase it is the rule of public. I do't say public must lose thier decency.....

The sole purpose of RTI to be transparent and to enable the citizen to question the government so that government can be accountable....

please note that in U/s 2 (f) .... no where it is written that information can not be sought in form of question.

Please review the following decsion of Kerala SIC where...

The PIO denied the informtion on a plea that the information sought for in the form of "Questionnaire" does not come under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.. In my First Appel I had pleaded that I had sought the information in a particular form as stipulated in Section 7(9), the meaning of the word "Form" are "Method used to convey the contents", " the way it is said" etc and the meaning of the word "Questionnaire" are "a Form containing a set of questions as a way of gathering information" etc. etc. The AA and Additional Chief Secretary repeated the same reply given by PIO in first Appeal. In Second Appeal to the SIC, following are the relevent portion of SIC, Kerala's Order AP No.594(4)SIC/2008 dated 27-5-2008

"The Commission pointedly asked the SPIO to explain as to how the information sought would not come under " Information " u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act just because it was put in a questionnaire format. After hearing the PIO the Commission clarified to her that the information as the appellant had sought would very well come under the "Information" as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and therefore it had to be provided. Accordingly the Commission directed the SPIO to provide the information etc., ..... within 7 days free of cost.

It seems to be an important decision concrning information sought in the form of a questionnaire

Please reply....

Regards

Rajeev

Rajeev Kumar (Professioanl Social worker) 08 December 2010

Dear adv Ramchandran

We all know RTI was enacted to make transparent and accountable government. If government is answerable then it would be more accountable. If government will be more accountable, then true democracy will survive and sustain.

In democracy, there might be honour of the position, but it can’t be egoistic. The notion that citizen can't ask question or seek reason seems to hurt the ego of public authority.

Democracy is not meant for ego-appeasement of bureaucrats; because corruption is mushrooming because of ego appeasement of public authorities.

I don't say to dishonor the public authority but to make them answerable.

The aim of RTI act was to curb the corruption also. How we would curb the corruption, if we will create the controversy between QUESTION VS INFORMATION and REASON VS INFORMATION.

We know that in our public offices, only documents don’t contain the complete information. If public Authority is not liable to give reason, then full transparency will not be created.

The controversy between QUESTION VS INFORMATION OR REASON VS INFORMATION will discourage Indian citizen to seek information. Poor helpless citizen will be subjected to harassment, as it happens to many Information seekers and happened to me also

This controversy encourages the Public Authority to withhold the information.

Please go through the CIC decision of

Udai K. Nath, versus Department of Post., Appeal No.ICPB/A6/CIC/2006 February 27, 2006

There appellant has sought for the reasons for cancellation of a tender in which his company had participated by a letter dated 14.10.2005. The CPIO, by a communication dated 25.11.05, declined to furnish the information sought on the ground that decision to cancel the tender was taken as per Clause 7 of NIT and thus expressing the Department’s inability to give further information.

The main theme of RTI Act is that there should be transparency in decision making and therefore, the appellant is entitle to know the reasons for cancellation of the tender.

The Department has power to accept or reject any offer without assigning any reason, yet in terms of the RTI Act; the appellant has the right to seek the reason for rejection of the tender.

Kindly reply

Warm regards

Rajeev Kumar