Central Information Commission
Rameshwar Naik vs Union Public Service Commission on 2 February, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2019/107701
Rameshwar Naik अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
S.O.(R-VI),
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/02/2021
Date of Decision : 01/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER: Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/11/2018
CPIO replied on : 07/12/2018
First appeal filed on : 21/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 07/01/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/01/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 13.11.2018 seeking information regarding Post of Skipper, Directorate of Logistic customs and Central Excise, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. He sought certified copies of information of all the details of candidates selected for the above mentioned post along with all the detail of educational qualification, Bio-data& Sea Service etc. 1 The CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to the appellant on 07.12.2018 and also enclosed the list of finally recommended candidates for the aforesaid post. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2018. FAA's order dated 07.01.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO and also enclosed the list of finally selected candidates, which was inadvertently not attached with the reply dated 07.12.2018.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Dipal Kumar Biswas, US & CPIO and Himanshu Joshi, ASO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the names of the recommended candidates was provided to the Appellant while the other details of the candidates was denied to him as these documents as submitted by the other candidates were held in a fiduciary capacity by their office.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions upholds the reply of the CPIO. No further action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
2
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Rameshwar Naik
3