Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sandeep Kalita vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 27 January, 2026

                            केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/NITAP/A/2024/641425

SANDEEP KALITA                                     .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम


CPIO,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARUNACHAL PRADESH, RTI CELL,
JOTE, DISTT-PAPUM PARE,
ARUNACHAL PRADESH-791113                           ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                  :    22.01.2026
Date of Decision                 :    27.01.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on         :    19.06.2024
CPIO replied on                  :    23.09.2024
First appeal filed on            :    19.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's      :    N.A.
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated       : 17.09.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Request for information under RTI Act, 2005, regarding Faculty (Academic) and Non-Faculty (Non-Academic) positions at National Institute of Technology (NIT), Arunachal Pradesh Respected Sir/Madam, Page 1 of 3 With reference to the subject cited above I would like to request you to kindly provide details to the following queries:
1. What is the total sanctioned strength of faculty positions at NIT, AP, categorized by departments and designations, for example Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in Mathematics Department and so on?
2. What is the total sanctioned strength of non-faculty positions at NIT, AP, categorized by departments and positions, such as administrative, technical, and support staff required in Admin & Allied cadre, Technical Cadre, Finance & Accounts etc?
3. Kindly, provide a detailed breakdown of the total sanctioned vacancies in both faculty and non-faculty positions, specifying the number of vacancies in each category, viz, SC, ST, OBC, EWS and UR?
4. Was there any Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST category candidates for faculty and non-faculty positions conducted earlier or there is any plan to do so in the future recruitment drives?
5. Is there any plan or projection for increasing the faculty and non-faculty vacancies apart from the already sanctioned strength at NIT, AP over the next 5 years? If yes, then kindly provide the information about the initiatives or strategies in place to achieve this increase? If no, then kindly provide the reason for not doing so?"

2. Aggrieved by no decision of the CPIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2024. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 17.09.2024.

4. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.09.2024 furnished a point-wise reply along with relevant information.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conferencing. Respondent: Shri Taba Tadhe Goyang, AR/PIO present through audio conferencing.

5. Written statement of the Appellant is taken on record. Appellant stated that during pendency of this Second Appeal he has received the desired information from the CPIO vide letter dated 23.09.2024 and is satisfied with the Page 2 of 3 same. Therefore, he prayed the Commission to close this Second Appeal as withdrawn. However, Appellant prayed the Commission that CPIO may be guided to give timely response as per the timelines of RTI Act, 2005.

6. PIO tendered his apology for delayed response and stated that it was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. Decision:

7. Considering the submissions of the Appellant that he is in receipt of information and is satisfied with the same, the Commission finds no scope for relief in the matter.

8. However, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and follow the timeline mandates of Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 while dealing with the RTI matters.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri SANDEEP KALITA Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)