Central Information Commission
Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 27 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UTOJK/C/2024/653205
Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Sciences and Technology, UT of Jammu and
Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2025
Date of Decision : 24.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.11.2024
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 21.11.2024
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.11.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Copies of correspondence with Raj Bhawan, Srinagar/Jammu:
Provide copies of all letters, emails, and other forms of communication shared with Raj Bhawan, Srinagar/Jammu w.e.f 01/11/2021 till date, regarding the case of Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi and complaint against SKUAST Kashmir and Shri Abid Sultan.
2. Copy of the response/action taken report:
Provide a certified copy of the response or action taken report sent to Raj Bhawan in reference to the letter issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, vide letter no. Agri/SKST/15/2021 (CC 18904), dated 01/05/2024, addressed to the Vice Chancellor of SKUAST Kashmir."Page 1 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2024 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A communication dated 09.01.2025 has been received from CPIO stating as under:
Subject: Allegations of mis-representation against Shri Abid Sultan representation thereof.
Madam, Kindly refer your Office Communication No. Agri-SKST/15/2021(CC18904) dated 10.12.2024 on the subject cited above. In this regard, I am directed to convey that this Office has received various communications from different Government Departments on the subject from time to time, which have been responded to by the University (copies enclosed). Moreover, 50 RTI applications, received in this connection have been disposed of as per provisions of RTI-Act 2005.
Further to convey that Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi has also filed a writ petition under WPC No. 2674/2019 titled "Shakeel Ahmad Sofi Vs Vice-Chancellor, SKUAST-K & others, which is currently pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh at Srinagar An enquiry was conducted by the Director, Sericulture with respect to the complaint by the Complainant against the SUKAST, on allegations of denial of appointment and selective discrimination. The detailed enquiry report has been submitted by the Respondent with their submission, wherein the moot question enquired upon was the genuineness of points awarded to the Complainant and to Dr. Abid Sultan for Ph.D degree on the basis of documents submitted by them. The enquiry concluded as under:
... Although the complainant as per his statement agitated this issue before the university authorities, but they refused to entertain his arguments and even during the enquiry proceedings the University authorities did not accept to have committed any error and remained adamant on the stand adopted by the Screening Committee. In my opinion awarding 14.1 points in favour of Dr. Abid Sultan out of 15 points for the pre Ph.D course is erroneous. As such the grievance of the complainant is genuine so far it relates to the eligibility of Dr. Abid Sultan for the points awarded for the Pre- Ph.D course. However, I do not agree with the contentions of the complainant so far it relates to the points awarded in favour of Dr. Abid Sultan for the publication of research papers that has fetched him 8 points in the API score card.
Subsequently, on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection committee Dr. Abid Sultan has been appointed in the SKUAST (K) vide order No. 465(Estt.) of 2019 dated: 28-05-2019 issued under endorsement No- AU/Adm./GAD/2018-19/Appointment-T/4394-4453 (dated: 28-05-2019 as Page 2 of 4 Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist in Business Management (HR) and he has been discharging his duties in the University. The grievance of the complainant can be redressed by appointing Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi against a vacant position of Assistant Professor/ Jr. Scientist in the concerned discipline in the University i.e. SKUAST-(K).
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Javed Ahmad Bhatt - CPIO/Asstt. Registrar was present through video conference during hearing.
Both parties were present for hearing and the Respondent stated that the Complainant has filed numerous RTI applications aggrieved by denial of his appointment as Asstt. Professor at SKUAST(K). The RTI queries raised by the Complainant have been duly responded from time to time. A detailed enquiry report with respect to the primary cause of grievance of the Applicant has been submitted by the Respondent as noted above.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the Respondent it is noted that information as available on record with the public authority and as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Complainant from time to time.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent response based on information available on record from time to time, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate, wilful or malafide denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that no case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
Page 3 of 4The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the complete set of the written submission dated 09.01.2025 with the relevant annexures, to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within a week thereafter.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)