Central Information Commission
S P Nedumaran vs Indian Institute Of Technology , Madras on 1 October, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/IITMD/A/2018/119050/01763
File no.: CIC/IITMD/A/2018/119050
In the matter of:
S P Nedumaran
... Appellant
VS
PIO/ Registrar
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai - 600 036
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2017 CPIO replied on : 08/01/2018 First appeal filed on : 24/01/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 19/02/2018 Second Appeal dated : 15/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 01/10/2019 Date of Decision : 01/10/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Sh P V Karunakaran, Deputy Registrar, Rep of the CPIO, IIT present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of MoU between IIT, Mardas and Tamilnadu News Print Limited (TNPL) for conducting written tests for recruiting staff for TNPL.
2. Copies of the rules, circulars, permissions, authorization/sanction letters, acts and Government Orders of Government of India and other authorities to conduct written tests to recruit the staff for TNPL.1
3. Question papers with answer keys of written tests prepared by IIT Madras for recruiting staff for TNPL for the period 01/01/2014 to 15/11/2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that though he was given a reply he was not satisfied with the same.
The respondent informed that while a reply had been given within time, a further clarification on the issue has now been given on 30.09.2019,to the Commission. In this clarification, it has been stated that no formal MOU was made between IITM and TNPL. It was on the request of TNPL that the written exam was conducted and the paper was set by the Professor IITM in his individual capacity. Since the normal retention period to retain the question paper and answer scripts is one year, these are no longer available, and thus cannot be provided.
Observations:
The Commission is surprised to find that the CPIO in his reply denied the information by referring to Sec. 8(1)(d)and (e) and sought exemption accordingly and now, in the recent communication to the Commission, has informed differently , as stated above. The CPIO is advised to provide proper information in the first instance in reply to the RTI application and refrain from changing his stance from time to time.
Decision:
The latest written communication provided to the Commission has not been provided to the appellant. The respondent is directed to provide this to the appellant within 3 days of receipt of this order. The CPIO is also warned to be careful while handling RTI applications and ensure proper scrutiny of the information sought and supply correct and proper replies henceforth.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
2
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3