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 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jyotirmoy Deb vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 25 June, 2025

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NITSC/A/2024/600109 +
           िशकायत सं     ा / Complaint No. CIC/NITSC/C/2024/605180

Jyotirmoy Deb                                              ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                                        ...िशकायतकता/Complainant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
 CPIO: National Institute of
 Technology, Silchar, Assam                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:

 RTI : 03.10.2023               FA      : 03.11.2023            SA/Complaint : Nil.

 CPIO : Not on record           FAO : Not on record             Hearing : 23.06.2025
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.

Date of Decision: 25.06.2025
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

 Please furnish the information listed below regarding the recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-II(Level-10) in the Department of Physics, NIT Silchar (Advt No. NITS/Dean(FW)/Faculty/Advt/01/2023 Date: 01.06.2023).
1. List of candidates with their credit points who have applied for this post.
Page 1 of 3
2. Provide the list of candidates called for screening interview related to the above post along with their applications mentioning the list of publications, academic records, calculated credit points and screening committee report.
3. Criteria fixed for screening interview
4. Comparative statements of all candidates called for screening interview, along with the individual marking statement of all screening interview members.
5. On what basis candidates are called for the final interview? Etc.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 03.11.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated Nil.

4. The appellant/complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pulakhnath, Assistant Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought was colossal, thus, the appellant/complainant had been allowed for the inspection of records vide letter dated 11.06.2024 but he did not come for the same. When queried by the Commission regarding disclosures of marks of other candidates and list of candidates invited for the interview, the respondent submitted that list of shortlisted candidates is published for public but not the marks other candidates.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the reply furnished by the CPIO dated 11.06.2024 is false and misleading as the appellant/complainant has sought for voluminous information including the personal information of the other candidates (third parties), which should have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and furnish a revised point-wise reply to the appellant/complainant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, Page 2 of 3 within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Further, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining reasons for furnishing wrong reply to the appellant/complainant by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal/complaint is disposed of/closed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 25.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam - 788010 2 Jyotirmoy Deb Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)