Central Information Commission
Jeta Ram vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 23 April, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/NITKS/A/2018/172018/03256
File no.: CIC/NITKS/A/2018/172018
In the matter of:
Jeta Ram
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/Dy. Registrar (GA Legal)
National Institute of Technology (NIT)
Krurkshetra, Haryana - 136 119
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 16/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 18/08/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 20/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 21/04/2020 Date of Decision : 21/04/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: G R Samantray, Assistant Registrar and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in regard to the recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar at NIT, Kurukshetra for which written test was held on 23/12/2017 (Saturday) and thereafter Interview was conducted on 18/04/2018 at NIT Kurukshetra:
1. What was the selection criteria for the post of Assistant Registrar.
2. Whether marks obtained in Objective Test (MCQ) as well Descriptive Test included in Interview while making final merit list.1
3. Basis of final selection of a candidate for the said post (only interview marks have been taken into consideration or Written Test marks have also been added)
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
An attempt was made to contact the appellant over phone on his mobile number mentioned in his second appeal. He could not be heard as his mobile number had no incoming facility. It was confirmed by the Registry that notice of hearing was sent to his e-mail id, to which no response was received.
In view of the same, the Commission decided to adjudicate the matter on merits.
The CPIO submitted that the appellant has filed an RTI application under the RTI Act vide dated 06.07.2018. That the CPIO immediately took cognizance of the same and transferred the application to the concerned ACPIO, General Section u/s 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act. That the first appeal was filed on 08.08.2018, he further submitted that the CPIO after receiving the reply from the ACPIO, General Section had replied to the appellant vide letter dated 16.08.2018.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that a reply was sent to the appellant after the first appeal was filed. Hence, there was a little delay which could have been avoided. In so far as the reply is concerned the same was proper. In respect of point no. 5 the information was rightly denied being related to personal information of third party. The appellant had filed the second appeal on 20.11.2018 in which he requested for a point wise reply as relief.
Decision:
In view of the above observation, the CPIO is directed to resend the reply dated 16.08.2018 via speed post to the appellant as well through e-mail, within 5 days from the date of withdrawal of the prevailing lockdown. The FAA is 2 cautioned to be careful and dispose first appeals as per the mandate of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3