Central Information Commission

Decision No.231/IC(A)/2006 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00622 Dated, the 1 st September, 2006

Name of the Appellant :

Sh. Rajnish Singh Chaudhary, 49-A, New Jawahar Nagar, Opposite A.P.J. School, Jalandhar City 144 001. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-69 DECISION

Name of the Public Authority:

Facts of the Case:

1. In 2002-03, the UPSC conducted examinations and interviews for recruitment of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in EPFO, Ministry of Labour. The appellant was one of the candidates who appeared for examination and interview also. In this backdrop, he has sought the following information: a) b) c) d) e) Marks awarded to me in interview and written examination respectively. Weightage assigned for interview and written examination respectively. Cut-off marks for those selected under General and OBC category respectively. Total number of candidates interviewed every day for 3 days i.e. 6th, 7th, 8th January 2003 respectively. Name of Chairman and other members of the Board, who conducted the interview. The CPIO provided a point-wise response as under: i) You have secured 57.77 marks (out of 100) in the written test and 35 marks (out of 100) in the interview. Thus obtaining 92.77 marks (out of 200) which are below the cut off level of marks recommended for OBC candidates.

2.

ii)

50:50 weightage has been assigned to the written test and interview for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour. The Commission have decided that this being a core subject may not be disclosed because this will affect the integrity of the entire Recruitment Process. Total number of candidates interviewed everyday on 6th, 7th & 8th January 2003: 6th January 2003 : 18 7th January 2003 : 19 th 8 January 2003 : 19 Total : 56 The Commission have decided that this being a core subject may not be disclosed because this will affect the integrity of the entire Recruitment Process. The names and designation of the Board who conducted the interview are not shared even with the indenting Ministry/Department. The advisors/experts are also advised to keep the fact of association with the Commission as confidential. The Commission has a fiduciary relationship with the experts and advisors who come to assist the interview Board, hence the disclosure of this information will be against the public interest and this is exempted U/S 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

iii)

iv)

v)

3. The appellant was not satisfied with the response of the CPIO and filed his st 1 appeal before the appellate authority of UPSC, in which he contended that: (i) information sought under c above has been denied to him, (ii) under the RTI Act information cannot be denied on the ground of core subject, as mentioned by the CPIO, and (iii) the composition of Selection Committee/Interview Board has not been revealed. 4. The appellate authority of UPSC passed the following order: I do not find any shortcoming in the point-wise reply given to the appellant. The cut-off marks in respect of any category is not disclosed because disclosing it may mean disclosing the reserve list as well and it will not only be against the confidentiality and integrity of the entire recruitment process but also will be against the public interest. Hence the denial of information appears to be justified on this ground. Similarly, in the constitution of interview Boards, names of experts and advisers are kept with the Commission in a fiduciary relationship, which is covered under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005, as rightly informed by the CPIO

5. Being not satisfied with the decision of the appellate authority of UPSC, he has preferred 2nd appeal before the Commission. He has pleaded that information sought under point (c) and (e) above should be given to him. He has also alleged that the constitution of Selection Board was not proper, as it comprised of private persons and there was not a single Member of the UPSC on the Board. Commissions Decision: 6. The process of recruitment of staff for various types and levels of jobs is closely related to right to work. It has therefore significant bearing on life and liberty of citizens. The conduct of examinations and interviews has to be therefore duly transparent to allow for proper scrutiny of the process of recruitment by the aspirant candidates so as to strengthen their faith in the procedure of selection and to ensure the credibility of the system. Accordingly, every public authority should adhere to the principle of maximum disclosure and provide a reasonable explanation, u/s 4(1)(d) of the Act, for every action taken by them. 7. In view of this, there is no valid reason for withholding the information sought for by the appellant. First, the total marks scored by the appellant in written papers as well as interview should be disclosed. Second, in almost every competitive examination a significant number of aspirants are found to be equally bright and competent for the specific jobs. Yet, certain criterion or formulae is to be applied for short-listing candidates from different social categories, as per the reservation policy and the availability of vacant positions in each category. Accordingly, a cut-off point is determined and applied to effectively implement the reservation policy. This is done by every recruiting agency and the UPSC is no exception. The procedure and the technique that are followed to determine the cut-off point (or level of score of marks) to draw the line between successful candidates and others should be disclosed for each category of aspirants. The action relating to determination and application of cut-off point, being an extremely critical factor in life and career of a person, should fall under public domain. In the instant case, the information sought should therefore be furnished, since the matter is complete and over. Third, on the matter of composition of Selection Committee, the appellant has alleged that the Committee was not properly constituted as per the law. There is however no provision in the RTI Act for redressal of such grievances. However, it is not understandable as to why the composition

of the Committee should not be made public, after the selection process is over. In order to ensure that the persons of high caliber and integrity are duly associated with the process of selection of candidates for employment and promotion, the composition of such Boards/Committees should be made public, after the entire process of selection is over. 8. The CPIO is accordingly directed to furnish the information sought within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision. 9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(P.K. Gera) Registrar

Cc: 1. Sh. Rajnish Singh Chaudhary, 49-A, New Jawahar Nagar, Opposite A.P.J. School, Jalandhar City 144 001. Sh. Ved Prakash, CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-69

2.