SOCIAL AUDIT -CIC DECISION ON RECRUITMENT PAPERS UNDER RTI

Date: 25-07-2014                                                                         By email

To,

Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission,

August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi110066

Email: rajiv.mathur@nic.in

Respected Sir,

Subject: Decisions No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001144/5392 dated 20 June 2014           [ S. K Singh v/s Dept of Post]

As part of social audit and citizen participation in governance, I happened to peruse captioned decision. Ld. IC has permitted disclosure of appointment letter but has denied certificates and documents submitted by the public servant at the time of appointment.

With a view to improve quality of decisions and making RTI effective and user-friendly, I respectfully point out following infirmities in the said decision:

1. This decision violates following decisions of CIC and hence principle of precedence is breached:

CIC/SS/A/2012/001370 dated 29.04.2013

CIC/SS/A/2013/000829 dated 15-10-2013

4221/IC(A)/2009- F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000195 dated 24-07-2009

CIC/SM/A/2010/001028 dated 30-05-2011

CIC/SM/A/2013/000218 dated 18-06-2013

2. The captioned decision also violates following judgements:

a. Judgement dated 12-12-2011 of HIGH COURT OF DELHI in LPA 797/2011 -UPSC v/s  N SUGATHAN covering other three writs on the same issue.

b. Judgement dated 23-04-2013 of HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND in Writ Petition No.1814 of 2006 (M/S) -Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. CIC.

c. Judgement dated 04-03-2013 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.4239 of 2013 (O&M) - Vijay Dheer vs State Information Commission,

3. Disclosure of certificates and documents is in larger public interest, since

very large number of cases have come to light where candidates have sought appointments on the basis of fake or forged documents and certificates. Scrutiny of genuineness cannot be left to govt. officers only. Alert citizens can also check veracity of certificates and documents if supplied under RTI. This will serve larger public interest which over-rides private interest and privacy of recruited employee. I quote from judgement quoted at 3.c supra:

“…….A part of information/documents sought by the complainant, relates to the mode of appointment/promotion of a person on a public post, therefore,

information/documents to that extent fall under the domain of larger public interest. The documents on the basis of which a person has sought an appointment in a public office becomes the documents of larger public interest."

4. This information cannot be denied to Parliament or State Assembly.

5. It is not in consonance with preamble and legislative intention of RTI Act. It has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice and public welfare. It supports wrong doers at the cost of public.

6. Section 11 could have been invoked and public servant might have permitted disclosure, if he has submitted genuine documents or certificates.

I therefore request that this decision be reviewed on the basis of procedural deficiencies since above decisions and judgements have not been taken into consideration by Ld. IC or there is no express justification for over-riding aforesaid decisions of CIC and Judgements of High Courts, thereby breaching principle of precedence. This decision will support fraudsters who try to get govt jobs based on fake documents and certificates through corruption. It will be a bad precedence for other ICs of CIC and SICs.

I have locus standi in this case, since my future requests will be denied on the basis of this decision. Candidates recruited based on fake or forged certificates and documents would give rise to bad governance, which may affect many citizens including me. Thus I am affected person like any other citizen who has to be served by public servants.

In case review is not possible, you may use your position as first among equals and ensure that such decisions are not taken in future at least.

I am sure, Ld. IC, keeping in view his stature and background and previous decisions, would not like to take disadvantage of inability of common appellants to approach High Courts against defective decisions, due to financial, time and expertise constraints. Each decision of CIC is costing nearly 18-20000/- to tax payers and poorest of the poor also pays indirect taxes while buying food.

I humbly quote:

“A citizen is not expected to indulge in futile litigation and endless chase in overcoming technical hurdles and obstacles for seeking information. Public authorities are not obliging him by giving him information because the rule of the day is transparency, accountability in public dealing and public affairs and in relation to public fund. --- Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.378 OF 2009 on 30-11-2010.

Copy of above decision is enclosed.