Central Information Commission
Abhishek Gupta vs Indian Institute Of Technology ... on 9 July, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IITGN/A/2019/153062
In the matter of:
Abhishek Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Public Information Officer,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Gandhinagar Palaj, Gandhinagar- 382355
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/06/2019 CPIO replied on : 10/07/2019, 03/08/2019 First appeal filed on : 19/08/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 11/09/2019 Second Appeal dated : 28/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 08/07/2020 Date of Decision : 08/07/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Shri R.B Bhagat, Deputy Registrar and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
(a) With regard to selection of 27 candidates for the course of Biological Engineering, provide information about marks obtained by each candidate in written examination, interview and GATE score.
(b) Whether all the selected students have taken admission in the said course.
If not, provide the details of vacant seats, category wise and also provide the procedure for filling the vacant seats.
16(c) Provide the marks obtained in written test and interview by the appellant (Application Serial No. 191M04332) in the said examination. Also provide the GATE score. He also wanted to know whether he is eligible for admission.
Grounds for Second Appeal The appellant in his second appeal has stated that the CPIO has provided irrelevant and incomplete information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that in respect of point no. 6(b) of the RTI application the reply dated 03.08.2019 was incomplete. He further elaborated that out of 20 selected candidates it was mentioned that 13 were given admission, two additional candidates who were from General category waiting list were also given admission. However, there was no information given regarding the remaining 5 vacant seats; he further pointed out that it was not informed as to when the notification was released for admission from the waiting list; he further contested the reply in respect of point no. 6(c) of the application and stated that the reply is not correct because the CPIO had relied on some earlier reply but that reply did not cover the query and the status of the appellant's eligibility for admission was also not informed.
The CPIO submitted that apt replies were given vide letters dated 10.07.2019 and 03.08.2019. He further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 11.09.2019 disposed of the first appeal.
Shri R.B Bhagat, Deputy Registrar and PIO vide written submissions dated 1st July 2020 submitted that the appellant vide his application dated 05-06-2019 (received by the CPIO on 11-06-2019) asked for information about admission to M.Tech in Biological Engineering Programme of IIT Gandhinagar. In response, the CPIO vide letter dated 10 July 2019 provided the relevant point- wise information to the appellant. However, even before the receipt of information/reply from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal to the FAA vide letter dated 15.07.2019 and another RTI application on 27.06.2019 where two out of three questions/ points were the same as mentioned in his RTI application dated 06-06-2019. Accordingly, the FAA vide letter 22 August 2019 passed orders that the information has already been provided by the CPIO. Also, the CPIO vide letter dated 03 August 2019 provided the relevant information on the new questions/ points. Before the reply of the CPIO reached the appellant, he filed another first appeal dated 13-08-2019 which 2 was duly considered and disposed of by the FAA vide letter dated 11 Sep 2019. In between, the appellant filed his third RTI application dated 22-07-2019, asking for repetitive information on the same subject by slightly modifying the questions. In response, the CPIO vide letter dated 22 August 2019 refused the information on the ground of repetition. However, even before the reply of the CPIO was received by the appellant, he filed two more first appeals on 13.08.2019 and 19.08.2019. Subsequently, he filed one more first appeal on 30.08.2019. Considering that all the three appeals were related to the same subject matter and had inter-connections, the FAA clubbed and considered all the three appeals together and passed an order vide letter dated 24 Sep 2019 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. Nonetheless, in his order, the FAA mentioned that if the appellant wishes, he can present his case in front of the FAA but the appellant did not approach the FAA and instead filed three separate second appeals to the Commission. ln view of the above, he submitted that the decisions taken by the CPIO and the FAA are in the spirit of the RTI Act 2005 and all the available information has been provided to the appellant in a timely manner.
On a query by the Commission, the CPIO during hearing submitted that the appellant was not eligible for admission.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO's reply dated 10.07.2019 (page 4) read as follows:
"Your application dated 06.06.2019, which was received in this Institution on 11.06.2019, the point wise information is as follows:
1. In the Biological Engineering course 27 candidates were given admission. The remaining 13 seats were kept vacant due to non availabity of suitable candidates.
2. Not applicable
3. List is given in Annexure-1
4. Marks scored by Abhisek Gupta:
Written 25, Interview 18, GATE Score 511"
The CPIO's reply dated 03.08.2019 read as follows:
"Your application dated 27.06.2019, which was received in this Institution on 04.07.2019, in this context it is informed that points no. 6(a) and (c) were replied vide letter dated 10.07.2019. Information in respect of point no. (b) is as follows:3
From General category 20 selected candidates only 13 took admission, and 2 General category candidates who were from waiting list were also given admission.
From OBC category selected candidates out of 5 candidates, 2 has taken admission. From 2 selected candidates of Scheduled caste none has taken admission."
The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.09.2019 held that, the RTI application dated 27.06.2019 was received on 04.07.2019 and the requisite information was sent by the CPIO on time vide letter dated 03.08.2019 which was received by the appellant on 17.08.2019 and hence no further action is required.
Decision:
Keeping in view the above facts and on scrutiny of the reply, the Commission is of the opinion that points no. 6(b) and (c) were appropriately replied to by the CPIO vide letters dated 10.07.2019 and 03.08.2019. Therefore, no further action is required in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4