CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066

F.NO. CIC/YA/A/2016/000407

Date of Hearing : 17.02.2017

Date of Decision : 28.02.2017

Appellant/Complainant : Shri J P Singh

Respondent : CPIO, South Delhi Municipal

Corporation/ Central Zone

Through:
Shri Swaran Singh, PIO

Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 31.08.2015

PIO replied on : 16.09.2015
First Appeal filed on : 28.09.2015
First Appellate Order on : 28.10.2015
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 09.02.2016

Information sought and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 31.08.2015, the appellant sought the information
regarding recruitment process of Technician Grade–IV (Mechanical)
conducted by PGIMER, Chandigarh. The PIO replied on 16.09.2015. The
same is reproduced hereinafter:

Sr. No. Information Sought Reply

Final list declared by the As per the policy of this institute that
Institute for the Post of once the selection process is
Technician Grade–IV completed i.e. the selected candidates
(Mechanical) 29.08.2015 join the department by the specified
1. Written marks and interview time, the marks of written
marks obtained by all the examination and interview etc. of all
candidates who have appeared the candidates who appeared in the
in the interview on 17.6.2015. written examination and interview will
2. Waiting list candidates, if any be put on the institute website hence
 prepared by the institute. the required information cannot be
supplied at this stage.

3. Copy of qualification certificates It relates to Establishment of

of all the selected candidates. Engineering Department, PGIMER
Chandigarh.

On 13.10.2015, the CPIO/Engg. Dept. furnished the following reply as

regards point no. 3:

The information sought under reference cannot be provided as per the

provision of Rule 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005, and further selection process of
Technician Grade IV (Mechanical) has not yet been finalised.

On 28.10.2015, the FAA directed the PIO to furnish the marks obtained by
son of the appellant. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the PIO furnished
details of marks obtained by the son of appellant. Feeling aggrieved over
denial of information on rest of the points, the appellant approached the
Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

The appellant is absent despite notice. The PIO is present and heard. He
states that the information relating to other candidates except for the son of
the appellant was withheld as the recruitment process was inconclusive at
the time of replying the RTI application. Upon a perusal of the memorandum
of second appeal, the grouse of the appellant is noted. Relevant portion is
reproduced hereinafter:

3. Vide letter dated 13.11.2015 attached as Annexure–E again totally

incomplete information was provided to the applicant which is serious
lapse on the part of the institute. It is further submitted that the
interview for the said recruitment was conducted on 17.06.2015
whereas final result was uploaded on internet on 28.08.2015 with a
gap of more than two months. In the said result two posts (of) general
category were offered to one OBC and one SC candidate which is totally
against the roster points.

Upon a query from the Commission, the PIO has nothing substantial to say.
It is contended by respondent that the order of FAA was complied with.
Decision:
The issue herein is no longer res integra. This bench while deciding Anil
Kumar versus CPIO, PGIMER Chandigarh [Appeals No.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000008 & CIC/YA/A/2016/000287] came across an
identical situation. Relevant portion is reproduced hereinafter:

Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant is aggrieved
inasmuch the information sought by him was withheld by the CPIO
citing the ongoing recruitment process. Per contra, the CPIO states that
all the information was furnished to the appellant on 14.01.2017 after
receipt of notice of hearing by the Commission. Upon a query by the
Commission as to why information was not provided within the
stipulated time frame, he states that as per policy of institute in this
regard, the records of recruitment are displayed on website after the
selected candidates join. Upon a further query by the Commission, the
CPIO fails to point out any clause in Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005
under which the policy of institute is carved out.

Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission is
pained to come across the ‘opaque & redundant’ policy of the
institute to keep the records of recruitment as best kept secrets
till the time selected candidates join the offered positions. One
wonders about the objective of this policy keeping public
recruitments away from the public gaze. A policy which defers
the disclosure of information till a point of time where any
disclosure loses its importance has to be in consonance with the
scheme of RTI Act. In the present case, the policy of institute is
in direct conflict with the statute and thus, the statute must
prevail. The Commission directs the public authority to publicize
information relating to all of its recruitment processes ie. To say, number
of total applicants, marks obtained by all selected candidates at each
stage of examination etc. immediately upon declaration of final result of
the recruitment without waiting for the selected candidates to join. It is
further clarified that any candidate can seek details of his own
performance / marks awarded even prior to conclusion of recruitment
subject to the exceptions as contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. Any
policy which eclipses the law is non est.

The ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable in the present

situation. After hearing the respondent and perusal of record, the
Commission finds that had First appellate authority heard the first appeal in