SIC/CO/SA/80/2012/311 - State Information Commission

File No. SIC/CO/SA/80/2012Decision No. . SIC/CO/SA/80/2012/311Title: Ms. Purnima Koul D/o Late Haridey Nath Koul R/o Dina Nagar Behind St. Xiver ConventSchool Barnai Jammu-181206 P.O. Muthi (9419263104)V/S1. FAA, J&K Services Selection Board.2. PIO, J&K Services Selection Board.10/10/2012This a 2 nd appeal filed by Ms. Purnima Koul D/o Late Haridey Nath Koul R/oDina Nagar Behind St. Xiver Convent School Barnai Jammu-181206 P.O. Muthi(9419263104) before this Commission on 18-08-2012 against the order ofFAA/PIO, J&K Services Selection Board.The brief grounds of the appeal are that the appellant had filed an RTIapplication before the PIO, SSB, Sehkari Bhawan, Jammu on 23-04-2012. The PIOpassed order on this application on 31-05-2012 providing information as perannexures. There is a minor delay in passing the order which is attributed toshifting of offices on account of annual darbar move. Hence no further action isrequired to be taken gasints the PIO.

Not being satisfied with the reply of PIO, the appellant filed 1 st appealbefore the 1 st appellate authority of J&K SSB on 04-06-2012 which was receivedby him on the same day. The 1 st appellate authority disposed of the appeal on 15-06-2012 which is well within statutory period of time. The 1 st appellate authorityhas adjudicated the only issue in the appeal which is with regard to allegedly nonsupply of information on point No.4 as mentioned in original RTI application. The1 st appellate authority directed the PIO to provide remaining information to theinformation seeker within 10 days. In her 2 nd appeal the appellant is contendingthat remaining information has not been provided to her in spite of 1 st appellateauthority’s direction. The 1 st appellate authority did attend the proceedings inperson and informed the Commission that an order by PIO dated 4/8/2012 incompliance with 1 st appellate authority’s decision dated: 15-06-2012 was passedand remaining information on point No. 4 of original RTI application was providedto the appellant in the form of annexure to above quoted PIO/s order.The 1 st appellate authority on receipt of her reminders of not havingreceived information from PIO on point No. 4 addressed another order dated: 22-08-2012 which is made part of record wherein he discussed in detail the freshcontentions raised by the appellant. The merit list which is submitted before thisCommission shows the candidate under the category of petitioners at S.No.1. Butthe appellant seems not to be satisfied with this reply.Therefore, now it would be relevant to see what information was asked bythe information seeker in her original RTI application dated 23-04-2012 as for thepurpose of RTI Act it is the original RTI application which has to be treated asreference point and not the detailed submissions, detailed discussions andaverments made in subsequent documentations i.e. 1 st appeal and 2 nd appeal

and/or additional reminders to 1 st appellate authority. The information sought inoriginal application is recorded as under:-“Kindly furnish the following information under RTI Acty,2009 with regardto the selection list of teachers in District Cadre Pulwama pursuant to theAdvertisement notification No.3 of 1996 dated: 14-12-1996:1. Total number of candidates selected in District Cadre Pulwama inpursuance to above notification.2. Number of candidates selected who applied in said notification on thedirections of Court orders by the Hon’ble Court in Balwinder Kour case9Judgment passed on 10-12-2010 in LPA No.75/2008 and connectedmatters:.3. Name of the candidate selected/recommended under above courtorders.4. Merit position of recommended candidate after applying revised criteriato the whole selection in above notification.5. Order No. and date of the selection list where under candidates wererecommended for appointment to the Government (earlier selection list)6. Order No. and date of the selection list where under candidate wasrecommended for appointment on court directions in district cadrePulwama in said notification.The annexure shows her at S.No.1 on the basis of merit of petitioners whichhas been determined on account of court decision. The 1 st appellate authority inhis subsequent clarification dated: 22-08-2012 has in detail given the reasonsthough under RTI Act he was not so bound and has intimated her that in view ofcourt’s order she has been placed at Sl. No. 1 and the Hon’ble High Court has notgiven any direction to quash the entire order. The limited mandate of theCommission under the State RTI Act is to ensure that the information which issought under the Act is provided and it is also to be ensured that information so

provided is complete and correct on the basis of records. Nothing has beenbrought before this Commission that information so provided is incomplete orincorrect. If the appellant is not satisfied with the interpretation of both theauthorities i.e. 1 st appellate authority and the PIO, she may take other legalcourse available to her.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.Sd/-(G. R. Sufi)Chief Information Commissioner,J&K(BMA)Copy to:1. 1. FAA, J&K Services Selection Board.2. PIO, J&K Services Selection Board.3. Ms. Purnima Koul D/o Late Haridey Nath Koul R/o Dina Nagar Behind St. Xiver ConventSchool Barnai Jammu-181206 P.O. Muthi (9419263104)4. Guard File.(Mohammad Sayed Shah)Registrar,State Information Commission,J&K.