Central Information Commission
Bhola Vishwakarma vs University Of Allahabad on 20 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/UOALD/A/2018/163852/03223
File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2018/163852
In the matter of:
Bhola Vishwakarma
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Sadanlal Sanwaldas Khanna Degree College,
(University of Allahabad)
179 D, Attasuriya, Allahabad - 211 002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 03/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 07/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 19/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 15/04/2020 Date of Decision : 15/04/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Dr. Ritu Jaiswal, Associate Professor (Ancient History Dept) and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect of appointment of Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at S S Khanna Degree College with reference to advertisement No.SSK/DR/01/2017 dated 13/10/2017:
1. Various details of the selected/waitlisted candidates in the format mentioned in the RTI Application.1
2. Academic (details of API marks granted by Screening Committee) marks and marks scored by the appellant in the interview held for the said post.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant pressed for information sought by him in respect of point no. 2 of his RTI application. He pressed for the break up of the API scores etc. The CPIO submitted that a revised reply as desired by the appellant can be given after the lockdown period is over. She further submitted that from the RTI application it was not clear earlier that what the appellant had asked for was the break up of the scores.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that information sought by the appellant in point no. 1 of the RTI application cannot be given being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, a revised reply in respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application should be given. Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply in respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application, as discussed during hearing within 15 days from the date of lifting of the lockdown.
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 2