Central Information Commission
Usha vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 22 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IGNOU/A/2020/119511
Usha ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
IGNOU, Regional Evaluation
Centre Lucknow, RTI Cell, 2nd
Floor, 5C/INS-1, Sector-5,
Vrindavan Yojana, Lucknow
-226029, Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/09/2021
Date of Decision : 20/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 04/03/2020
First appeal filed on : 06/05/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/07/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2020 seeking following information;
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 04.03.2020 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Ram Pravesh Yadav through audio conference.2
Respondent: Dr. Ashwini Kumar, Regional Director & PIO present through video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that although the desired information has been received but they are aggrieved with the delay caused by the Respondent office in providing the same and in revaluating the answer scripts as the delay resulted in ousting the Appellant from her job. He further prayed for suitable compensation to be awarded to the Appellant on account of the detriment caused to her career.
The PIO affirmed that there has been no delay in providing access to the information to the Appellant as the results for the Dec. 2019 exam was declared 45 days later and copy of the answer script of the Appellant was sent to her by post on 06.03.2020 itself. He further submitted that the letter sent by post came back undelivered due to inadequate address and in the meantime, as the Appellant applied for revaluation, the scanned copy of the re-evaluated answer script was also sent to the Appellant via email on 26.06.2020 and again when the Appellant applied for copy of the answer script through another RTI Application, copy of it was sent to her in August, 2020 so effectively, the Appellant was provided with copy of the original and revaluated answer script. As for the delay, the PIO submitted that extraordinary circumstances created by the lockdown imposed in the wake of the COVID pandemic obstructed most of the routine functions of IGNOU.
Decision:
The Commission upon hearing the submissions of both the parties is not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant to allow her payment of compensation on account of delay caused in providing her with the answer scripts as there is no material on record to suggest that there was actually a delay per se, since in the first instance the answer script was sent by post to the Appellant on 06.03.2020 itself. Thereafter, the Respondent office has readily facilitated the provision of the re-evaluated answer script also to the Appellant which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the PIO.3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4