Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Indian Council Of Forestry Research And ... on 19 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ICFRE/A/2023/621880
Ajay Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Indian Council for Forestry
Research And Education,
PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248006 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024
Date of Decision : 18.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 30.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.04.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"INFORMATION REQUIRED ON FOLLOWING POINST UNDER RTI ACT 2005 1 ADVERTISEMENT NO DSB 1CFRE 2022 FOR THE POST OF SCIENTIST B 2022 S NO 4 POST CODE 2104 CHEMISTRY SCT WHERE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION FOR THIS 1ST CLASS DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY IN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I WANT TO KNOW ON WHAT BASES APPLICATION NO SCT 00118 IS REJECTED 2 NAME THE AUTHORITY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TO CHECK THE QUALIFICATION Page 1 of 4 3 IF SOMEONE FULLFILY THE QUALIFICATION EVEN THEN HIS FORM IS REJECTED THEN WHERE I SHOULD COMPAINT ABOUT THIS NAME THE OF THAT AUTHORITY AND HIS POST 4 APPICATION NO SCT00118 SUBMIT A COMPLAINT ON HELPDESK ON 11 JAN 2023 BUT UNTILL NOW I DONOT RECEVIED ANY UPDATE I WANT KNOW WHY 5 I AM ATTACHING A FILE WHICH CONTAIN MY QUALIFICATION AND OTHER DETAILS FOR YOU CKECK AND PLEASE REPLY ON THAT IS STILL I AM UNELIGIBLE FOR THIS POST THAT I APPLY IF NO THEN WHY MY FORM IS REJECTED IN STARTING 6 ON 2ND FEB 2023 I SEND A CANDIDATE NAME MAYANK NEGI IN ICFRE AT CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT TO ASK PROGRESS OF MY FORM HE TRY TO CONTACT DR. V.K. VARSNEY HOD OF CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT HE REFUSED TO LISTEN MY CONCERN AND MISBEHAVE WITH REPRESENTATIVE AND SAID TO HIM THAT I AM NOT HERE TO LISTEN YOU IN A VERY BAD BEHAVIOR I WANT TO KNOW WHY HE DO THIS IS THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR I APPLICABLE AS PER HIS POST I WANT TO KNOW AGAIN THAT WHY HE IS THERE IF HIS BEHAVIOR IS LIKE THAT I AM COMPLAINING FOR HIS BEHAVIOR A COPY OF HIS STATEMENT FOR HIS BEHAVIOR ON 02FEB2023 AND WHAT KIND OF ACTION HAVE YOU TAKEN AGAINST HIM YOU CAN CHECK THE ENTRY OF THAT CANDIDATE ABOVE MENTION DATE 02FEB2023."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.03.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant has been provided in the Advertisement. It may be visited on the following link:- http://recruitment.icfre.gov.in.
The information has been proved in the website using login credentials through (Application No. and Date of Birth) for the following point."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.04.2023, held as under:-
"1.Both parties were summoned for hearing on 24.4.2023 at 5.00 PM. The applicant Shri Ajay Kumar attended the hearing through virtual mode. Dr Rajiv Pandey CPIO, ICFRE and Shri Vinay Kant Mishra, ADG (Edu&RB) deemed PIO were present in the hearing.
2.On perusal of the RTI application, appeal and comments received from CPIO, ICFRE, it has been observed that information regarding Point No.1 has been provided to the applicant, for point no. 2 - the recruitment of Scientist- B is under process and information can not be supplied at this time and rest of the points does not come under purview of RTI ACT, 2005 under section 2(f) of RTI Act. 2005. Thus the appeal stands disposed off."Page 2 of 4
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Rajeev Pandey, CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent submitted that averred recruitment process has been completed and their office will provide the relevant information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has submitted that averred recruitment process has been completed and their office will provide the relevant information and accordingly the Commission deems it fit to direct Dr. Rajeev Pandey, CPIO, to revisit the RTI Application and furnish pointwise information to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
THE FAA, Indian Council for Forestry Research And Education, PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248006 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)