first appeal-sail (1)

The First AppealUnder section 19(1) Right to information Act-2005

Dated: 3rd February 2010

To, The First Appellate Authority Shri B DhalExecutive Director (P&A)Steel Authority of India Limited, Corporate Office, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi-110003

The Name & Address of Appellant Sh. Rajeev Kumar Room-43, Men’s Hostel-2Central Institute of PsychiatryKanke, Ranchi-834006(Jharkhand)

________________________________________________________________________The First Appeal against the reply of SAIL vide letter no:

PERS/RTI/CO/09/440 dated December 30, 2009________________________________________________________________________ Sir,

Background of the appeal1. In December 2007, SAIL advertised 400 posts for

management trainee ( technical) and 100 Management trainees ( Administration)

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

1

was focused on general administrative problems of employee. Even in personal interview, none of question was asked related to mental health intervention.

5. Through filed RTI application of Pravin Kambley vs. SAIL in November 2009, it was first time publicly come out the news that the final recruitment process of MT (A) is over and all candidates have joined.

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

7. On 4th January 2010, appellant received the reply from SAIL office vide letter No: PERS/RTI/CO/09/440 dated December 30, 2009.

8. The reply of SAIL authority in mentioned letter was inadequate and unsatisfactory

9. Thereby appellant is filing 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

Analysis of the SAIL reply under Right to Information Act-2005

Applicant question-1

Why the declared result of MT (Admn) was not displayed on sail website? While even the recruitment process of all category is displayed? please give applicant valid reason for that

Reply of SAIL

The result of Management Trainee ( Admn) was not published on SAIL website , as it is not mandatory to do so

Comment :Unsatisfactory reply

2

Rationale for comment(1.1) It seems very unusual that the result of 100 advertised posts were not declared in public media (neither in Newspaper nor on website of SAIL). (1.2) While on regular course, SAIL website displays result of every recruitment even the recruitment through walk-in-interview and the recruitment of few posts of specialist or posts of group “D” employees(1.3) Hundreds of candidates wanted to make their career with SAIL. They did hard work to get in SAIL. But they all were (except selected candidates) deprived from their result.(1.4) Had the appellant not filed the RTI application , he would have been deprived to know the actual result of applied MT(A)(1.5) SAIL being as Public authority failed to be transparent about the result of MT (A) (1.6) SAIL authority did not give reasonable explanation for the sought information.(1.7) The reply of SAIL authority is inadequate and unjustified (1.8) Please note that according to Decision of CIC (Central Information commission) (ICPB/A-4/CIC/2006 dated 10.02.06 & ICPB/A-6/CIC/2006 dated 27.02.06) every action of a public authority must have a reason and it should be transparent to all. (1.9) Thereby SAIL authority liable to give proper explanation of not

displaying the final result of MT (A).

Applicant question -2

Please give me the list of all finally selected candidates for MT(Admn)

Reply of SAIL The list of 13 selected candidates were given Comment : complete reply

3

Rationale for comments(2.1) It was shocking news that finally only 13 candidates were

selected.(2.2) While in the advertisement published in December 2007,

numbers of posts advertised were 100. In the written examination 400 candidates were selected for interview as per government of India rules; four candidates for one post.

(2.3) SAIL authority never gave the explanation on the website about this sudden reduction of finally selected candidates.

(2.4) Although in RTI application reason of sudden reduction of finally selected candidates was not asked; because it was not in the knowledge of Appellant

(2.5) While SAIL authority is obliged to give its valid reason in public media adhering with CIC decisions (ICPB/A-4/CIC/2006 dated 10.02.06 & ICPB/A-6/CIC/2006 dated 27.02.06) which says that every action of a public authority must have a reason and it should be transparent to all.


1. Please give me the list of finally selected candidates for MT (Admn) counselling in

given formatName of

candidate

Category Marks

obtained in

written

Marks

obtained in

personal

interview

Marks

obtained in

group

discussion

Qualification

With

specialization

and institute

Any other

extra

qualification

Whether

candidate

has any

qualificatio

n or

exposure to

mental

health

interventio

n

Reply of The list of 3 candidates was given. The other information fall under the

4

SAIL category of third party information under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI.Rationale for comment

(3.1) It was also shocking news that only 3 candidates were selected in MT (A) counselling.(3.2) While it must have been 18. Because 72 candidates were selected for interview

in written exam for interview.(3.3) This section of information was not supplied in the format in which it was

sought by appellant. thereby PIO violated the U/S 7(9) of right to information Act-2005

(3.4) PIO categorized the other section of sought information as third Party information and U/S 8(1) (j) of the RTI.

the U/S 8(1) (j) of the RTI is reproduced here(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: PROVIDED that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person.

(3.5) In one of Decision of CIC about the Third Party Information (CIC/AT/A/2006/00014 – 22 May 2006): it was directed that the RTI Act does not give a third party an automatic veto on disclosure of information. The PIO and AA are required to examine the third party’s case in terms of provisions of section 8 (1) (j) or section 11 (1) as the case may be and arrive at the findings by properly assessing the facts and circumstances of the case. A speaking order should thereafter be passed.

(3.6) Please note that adhering with u/s 8(1) (j) the information sought by appellant was not personal information.

(3.7) In the various Decisions of CICs (180/IC (A)/2006 of 17.08.2006) and (11/53/2006-CIC of 2.5.2006) it was directed that marks of candidates (for

5

written examination as well as interview) to the candidates along with cut-off marks for different categories of candidates should not be kept secret.

(3.8) However Appellant in his RTI application had not asked the cut-off marks for various categories; because he had assumed that PIO of SAIL would provide him in given format.

(3.9) Please note that in the advertisement, there was two qualifications were decided for MT(A) counselling: MA (psychology) and MA ( Social work)

(3.10) Appellant had asked about the specialization in MA (psychology) and MA (social work).Please note that however MA (psychology) focussed on the human behaviour and but MA ( Social work) has further many specializations many of the specializations doesn’t deal directly with problems of human behaviors. Only specialization in (MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORK) are trained enough to deal entirely with mental health intervention or dealing with issues of human behaviors.

(3.11) Working experience in mental health set up also a valid point for the deciding the capability of candidates.

(3.12) Thereby the PIO of SAIL was liable to provide information of selected candidates for MT (A) counselling about marks of written, interview and GD. it was evident that PIO deliberately tried to hide the sought information.

(3.13) The other section of sought information that contained (Qualification, specialization, institute and experience in mental health set up) must also be disclosed. Because it was not personal information.

(3.14) The CIC in a decision (ICPB/A-9/CIC/2006 – 3 April 2006) held that when a candidate submits his application for appointment to a post in a public authority, the same becomes public document and he can not object to the disclosure on the ground of invasion of privacy and can be disclosed to public . In the light of mentioned CIC decision, the detail contained (Qualification, specialization, institute and experience in mental health set up) must also be disclosed as it was the part of their bio-data.

(3.15) According to CIC decision (CIC/A/12/2006 dated 21.02.06), the government cannot wrongly classify its documents as Secret and then claim

6

exemption from disclosure. But PIO of SAIL wrongly classified the above mentioned sought information as confidential; denied to provide to appellant.

(3.16) Adhering with U/S 8(1) (j) information sought by appellant was not the invasion of privacy of selected candidates for MT (A) counselling. It has relationship with public interest. Because degree/specialization in mental health related subject and working experience in mental health set up was directly linked the efficiency of candidates. Because they have to deal with behavioural problems of employees. In public authority only appropriate candidates must be selected. Public has right to know the appropriateness of selected candidates (under right to information act-2005) otherwise it would be injustice to non-selected candidates. But PIO of SAIL tried not to disclose the appropriateness of candidates.

(3.17) PIO of SAIL categorized above stated information as third party information and denied to supply. If PIO considered it Third Party then he must have followed the U/S 11(1) of RTI act-2005. That he did not do. If PIO had followed the U/S 11(1) of RTI act-2005; then again an appellant has full rights to be given the copy of the objections filed by a "third party" against disclosure of information by the PIO as per CIC decision (CIC/AT/A/2007/01297).


Give applicant the names, designations, qualifications of experts; those were present in the interview panel presented on 14 November 2008 at New Delhi.

Reply of SAIL The list of expert in the panel of interview is confidential as per section 8(1) (d) of RTI act. They were all sufficiently qualified and experienced.

7

Comment : Unsatisfactory reply Rationale for comment

(4.1) The intention of appellant was to sought this section of information was to know that whether there was any person expert in mental health issues/ mental health professional (Psychiatrist, Clinical psychologist and Psychiatric Social worker) was present in Interview panel. But PIO of SAIL denied providing the information.

(4.2) The disclosure of details of experts in interview panel can not be unnecessary. Their qualification and experience determine their capacity to select the candidate for right job.

(4.3) Thereby the question. 4 asked by the appellant was very much reasonable and in the interest of all those candidates who had applied in SAIIL for MT(A)

(4.4) The expert in interview panel was not vulnerable. Their life and limb can not be endangered.

(4.5) here also PIO of SAIL deliberately label the sought information as confidential i.e prohibited as per decision of CIC (CIC/A/12/2006 dated 21.02.06


Whether there was any person involved in interview panel who is expert in mental health issues? If not then give applicant the valid reason.

Reply of SAIL No- it may be clarified that the post of MT(A) counselling was meant for dealing with behavioural issues of the employees arising at the workplace

Comment : Did not furnish information

8

Rationale for comment(5.1) Here PIO itself accepted that work function of recruited MT (A) counselling is to deal with behavioural problems of employees.(5.2) in this view, it was very much reasonable to have Mental health professional / Expert related to mental health issues (Psychiatric social worker/ Clinical Psychologist/Psychiatrist) in the interview panel.(5.3) But PIO -SAIL denied that there was not such Mental health professional in the interview.(5.4) Please note that only Mental health professional is competent enough to assess the capabilities of mental health intervention of candidates.(5.5) Since there was not any Mental health Professional in interview panel, thereby the merit of recruiting appropriate mental health professionals or MT (A) counselling is doubtful and not justified.


If there was not any expert related to mental health issues and intervention, then how come it was possible for interview / assessment panel to assess the capacity of appeared candidates on 14 November 2008 at The Park Hotel, Parliament Street New Delhi?

Reply of SAIL Not relevant in the view of aboveComment : information not provided

Rationale for comment(6.1) PIO-SAIL did not provide any reasonable explanation. the question asked by appellant was very much relevant. PIO-SAIL can not label it not relevant (6.2) PIO-SAIL is very much responsible to provide every reason as per CIC decision (CIC/A/12/2006 dated 21.02.06).

9


Please give the details of applicant (Rajeev Kumar) /Roll number 50240020/ Reg no-700254: in given format

Reply of SAIL Marks of appellant were given Comment Marks of appellant were given


What were the parameters decided in personal interview for assessing the candidates? And how come applicant was not qualified in your personal interview standard?

Reply of SAIL

A candidate is recruited as per merit based on the performance in written, group discussion and Interview. the applicant did not come in the merit list of the candidate to offer letter were issued

Comment : unsatisfactory replyRationale for comment

(8.1) appellant had asked about the parameters in the personal in the interview.(8.2) PIO-SAIL failed to give proper reply of asked question. (8.3) Personal interview must have based on some parameters in which candidates are selected. PIO did not define their parameters. Personal interview is a systematic process of selecting candidate; it can not be arbitrary in nature. (8.4) Appellant can understand that merit is one of the criteria and Appellant did not fall in them.

Applicant Applicant is MSW (Medical and Psychiatric Social Work)

10

question-9 from TISS Mumbai, M.Phil in psychiatric social work from Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi. Whether the extra qualification and essential equalization MSW from highly reputed institute and work experience in mental health set up was given extra weightage.

Reply of

SAIL

No . the qualification was relevant for eligibility purpose

Comment : Reply is not satisfactory Rationale for comment

(9.1) Candidates Specialized in Medical & Psychiatric Social work are trained professionally to deal with problems of human behaviour. TISS is very reputed institute That provide high level of Professional Training. (9.2) In many of recruiting process the specialization and Institute from candidate is passed out is counted .(9.3) here relevant qualification , extra higher qualification and working experience in relevant areas were not counted in the efficiency criteria of appellant (9.4) Please note that Supreme Court Judgments 297 / 2006(3) (U.P.State Sugar Corpn Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sant Raj Singh & Ors.) held that Higher qualification is the valid basis for providing extra weightage to the candidates.


If yes, then give applicant the valid explanation, if your answer is no, then also give valid explanation.

Reply of SAIL

Explanation can not be asked in the RTI application

11

Comment: Misleading replyRationale for comment(10.1) PIO-SAIL wrongly defined the purview of RTI-2005.(10.2) The parameters of personal interview is very much the action of public authority and it must be transparent to public as per CIC decision (ICPB/A-4/CIC/2006 dated 10.02.06 & ICPB/A-6/CIC/2006 dated 27.02.06)(10.3) PIO failed to describe as what constitute the personal interview process? and why does not higher qualification and relevant working is valid basis for extra weightage in personal interview?

The first appellate authority is thereby requested to review the first appeal of appellant and give the justified reply to appellant as per RTI-2005.Please reply in stipulated period.Thanks and warm regards

List of enclosures

1. copy of reply of RTI from SAIL2. copy of the filed RTI application3. copy of slip of Speed post 4. copy of slip of IPO

Yours sincerely

Rajeev Kumar

12

first appeal-sail (1)

Documents