CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001209
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan
Public Authority DRDO
Date of hearing 09.08.2012
Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is the appellant’s contention that Ms. Geeta, daughter of Dr. W. Silvamurthy, former Director, DIPAS, DRDO, New Delhi, was selected as Scientist ‘c’ in 2004. It is his allegation that said Ms. Geeta was not qualified to be selected as Scientist ‘E’ as she did not hold the Ph.D degree at that time. He also alleges that she obtained the Ph.D. Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, in an irregular manner. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 7.10.2011, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 2.11.2011 wherein he refused to disclose any information on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Shri Mishra submits that he has not received a copy of the appeal memo and, therefore, it is not possible for him to respond to it off-hand. Besides, he also submits that Chairman, RAC, had conducted an inquiry into the matter and in report dated 24.12.2010 had held that the process of recruitment was in order. The Commission cannot comment on the validity of allegations made by the appellant. Even so, in my opinion, the requested information cannot be denied to the appellant only for the reason that DRDO is an exempted organisation. In fact, transparency demands that the records relating to the inquiry conducted by Chairman, RAC, are allowed to be inspected by the appellant or his representative. I order accordingly.
5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell,
314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi-110105.
2. Shri Rajiv Chauhan,
1053/3, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut-250005.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Appeal before the Central Information Commission;
Appeal No. ———————– Dated ————————
As I am aggrieved by decision of Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate
Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
1. Details of appellant:
1.1 Full Name: – RAJIV CHAUHAN
1.2. Full Address: R/O-1053/3, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT (U.P)-250005
1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09412628314 ; 09258045938 ; 0121-4009512;
4 Email ID: rajivchauhan89@yahoo.co.in
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):
2.1 Name/Designation: Dr.A.K.TYAGI ; SCIENTIST “F’ , CPIO, DRDO HQ;
2.2 Full Address: 314-A, “B’ BLOCK, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
3. Details of First Appellate Authority [FAA]:
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Dr. ARUN KUMAR
3.2 Full Address of FAA: OS & DIRECTOR; DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL;
ROOM NO- 217, DRDO BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110105
4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
4.1 To CPIO — 07 OCT 2011
4.2 To FAA: — 02 DEC 2011
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO Decision:-
02 NOV2011; RTI/01/2091/P/2011/0256; CPIO.DRDO HQ; NEW DELHI
5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:-
10 JAN 2012; RTI/02/2091/F/2011/112;
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:-
6.1 CPIO— 07 NOV2011
6.2 FAA: — 17 JAN 2012
7. Details of information sought:-
Kindly inform to you that Ms. Geeta D/o of Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defense (R&D) o/o DRDO New Delhi was selected Scientist”C’ through RAC(Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO) Adv.no-64 item no83-scientist-C without completing the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement as under-
1- That Ms Geeta is M.Sc (Biochemistry) and submitted his Ph.D during the selection,
but she was not awarded the Ph.d degree or nor completed three year research experience
which is must before the selection of scientist-C.
2- She was taken the junior / senior research fellowship for her Ph.D from DIPAS
(defense institute of psychology & allied sciences, new delhi ) where her father was the
director at that time. Her father constituted / approved the screening / selection
committee of JRF (junior research fellowship) and award 8000/- per month during JRF.
It is clear rule of RAC/DRDO to select the scientist ‘C’-
(i)- At least First class Master Degree in science subject, mathematics or psychology or
first class degree in engineering or technology or metallurgy from a recognized university
or equivalent.
(ii)- Three year experience in research or design or development production in the
Required area.
(iii)-Weightage for higher qualification to be equated as research experience for lateral
requirement as under –
Post graduate degree in engineering-two years.
Doctorate degree in Science.-three years.
Doctorate degree in engineering-four years.
NOTE ;- RAC website clarify that the candidate’s Ph.D degree should be awarded up to
the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’post.
Here I want to clear you that Ms. Geetha Ph.D was not awarded till closing date as given
in the advertisement.However Ms.Geetha did not fulfill the minimum eligibility
qualification and experience as published, since after that she was selected with the
criminal conspiracy of her father with board members of the RAC/DRDO. who
dishonestly and cheated all the participants applied for the post and forged the official
documents to select as a scientist.
Ms. Geeta did not obtained his Ph.D then how selection
committee consider this research period as an three year experience ?
Her father constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF (junior
research fellowship) as Director of the DIPAS and awarded 8000/- per month
scholarship and violet the Prevention of the corruption act-1988 – 13(d)- ii.
I here by enclose all related documents to prove the corruption during the selection
as an Interview letter / Ph.D submission detail. Her Ph.D was not awarded till time up to
the application submission date for the scientist-C post as per the RAC rules.
I want the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Did Ms.Geetha’s father / Director of DIPAS/ drdo Rr. W.Silvamurthy constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF and awarded @ Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter?
Yes/No
2. Ph.D degree should be awarded up to the closing date as
given in the advertisement for scientist’C’ post. Or Three
year experience in research or design or development
production in the required area is essential? Yes/No
3. Was Ph.D degree awarded to Ms.Geetha up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’ post. Yes/No
4. Have Ms. Geetha completed essential qualification for scientist ‘C’ post at the time up to the closing date as given in the advertisement?
Yes/ No
5. Provide the photocopy of the application form filled by Ms. Geetha for the scientist’C’ post against the advertisement published. Provide the photocopy of required application form filled by Ms. Geetha.
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request to you please provide me the information by the speed post.
8. Brief facts of the case:-
I submitted my RTI application before the CPIO, DRDO, New Delhi on dt.07-10-2011. Cause for put up this application was the allegation of the corruption / misuse of the office during the selection of the scientist. CPIO reply is not satisfactory and not as per the law because the RTI is related with the allegation of the corruption and not exempted under section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
However in this Supreme Court civil Appeal no – 6454,clearly mentioned that- “37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”
I was not satisfied with the reply of CPIO,DRDO HQ, New Delhi, after that I submitted an appeal before FAA to take the information but the FAA of DRDO dismissed the appeal and failed to provide the information with the ref. of second schedule of the RTI Act & section 24(1) of the RTI Act-2005.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:-
1- That the RTI application is related with the public information because many participant were applied for the above mentioned scientist post after the publication of the advertisement in employment news paper .
2- That this information is directly related with the corruption and misuse of the office and not come under section 24(1) of the RTI Act .
3- That the main object to take this information is to provide as an evidence before High Power Investigating Officer/ Commissions / High Courts in the interest of law and justice.
10. Any other information in support of appeal:-
This RTI information is required to proof a corruption during the selection. Secondly, In a RTI reply of the Bharathiar University vide his letter no COE/Ph.D/RTI Act/2011/2173 dt.20/12/11 Ms Geetha Ph.D awarded date clearly showing that , she was not completing minimum eligibility qualification during the submission of the application form for the scientist – C post.[encl]. Thirdly Central Vigilance Commission investigate the case and I wants clear evidence to put up before him through this RTI.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:-
I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the following information’s as under-
S.No INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY
1. Did Ms.Geetha’s father / Director of DIPAS/ drdo Rr. W.Silvamurthy constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF and awarded @ Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter?
Yes/No
2. Ph.D degree should be awarded up to the closing date as
given in the advertisement for scientist’C’ post. Or Three
year experience in research or design or development
production in the required area is essential? Yes/No
3. Was Ph.D degree awarded to Ms.Geetha up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for scientist ‘C’ post. Yes/No
4. Have Ms. Geetha completed essential qualification for scientist ‘C’ post at the time up to the closing date as given in the advertisement?
Yes/ No
5. Provide the photocopy of the application form filled by Ms. Geetha for the scientist’C’ post against the advertisement published. Provide the photocopy of required application form filled by Ms. Geetha.
I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction in section 8 & 9 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains in the DRDO office contained & record. Above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under scheduled –II. I request your honor to pass an order to concern authority to provide the information’s by the speed post.
(2)- I request your honor to pass an order in favor of the applicant as deemed fit as an any relief .
Personal Presence at hearing:- — YES
Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: MEERUT
Date: —————-
Signature of appellant
