Central Information Commission
Narinder Singh vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 19 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/171442/SD
Narinder Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Deputy Registrar (Estt)
Punjab University,
Chandigarh-160014 ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
RTI application filed on : 20/06/2017
CPIO replied on : 28/07/2017
First appeal filed on : 05/09/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2017
Second Appeal dated : 10/10/2017
Date of Hearing : 19/11/2018
Date of Decision : 19/11/2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 11 points regarding vacant and filled post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) for Scheduled Caste (SC).
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.1
Respondent: Ms Poonam Chopra, Dy. Registrar & PIO and Sandeep Chopra, Sr. Law Officer, O/o Deputy Registrar (Estt), Punjab University, Chandigarh present through VC.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO as he has not received certified copies of roster sought on paras 4 and 5 of the RTI Application and is aggrieved with the denial of SC certificate of selected candidate as sought on para 8 of the RTI Application.
PIO submitted that on para 4 of the RTI Application, Appellant was adequately informed that the roster is available on their website while for para 5 he was informed that the query is not clear. Further, information on para 8 has been rightly denied as it pertains to a third party and Appellant has already filed a Writ Petition with Delhi High Court against the selected candidate and the matter is sub-judice.
Decision Commission observes that there is no scope of intervention in the matter as per perusal of facts on record as the PIO has provided completely appropriate reply. Once the information is available in public domain, it ceases to be "held" or "under the control" of the public authority. Further, PIO is right in pointing out that the information sought vide para 5 of RTI Application is rather unspecific and in cryptic terms, hence no relief is being ordered in this respect. Furthermore, Appellant has not argued any larger public interest for the disclosure of information on para 8 of the RTI Application which otherwise would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third party. Accordingly, no further action lies.
With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
2
File No : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/171442/SD
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
3