Central Information Commission
Om Prakash vs University Of Allahabad on 17 September, 2020
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
File no.: CIC/UOALD/A/2019/600927
In the matter of:
Om Prakash
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
O/o the CPIO, University of Allahabad,
Senate House, University Road, Old Katra,
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh- 211002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 16/10/2018 First appeal online No. : UOALD/A/2018/60052
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 16/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 17/09/2020 Date of Decision : 17/09/2020 The following were present:
Appellant : Present over VC Respondent: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Assistant Professor and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the copy of online applications submitted by all the selected candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017.
2. Provide the name of candidate, father/husband name, details of Master degree, name of the University from which Master degree obtained, date of obtaining Master degree, name of Institute/university of Master degree, UGC NET/SLET qualifying month and year of each selected candidate for the post 1 of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017.
3. Provide details of PhD/D.Phil of each selected candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017, with name of candidate, date of PhD/D.Phil enrolment, date of PhD/D.Phil, date of submission of thesis, date of award of PhD/D.Phil. degree, name of University that awarded PhD/D.Phil. degree, subject of PhD/D.Phil. Degree.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete, irrelevant and misleading information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the reply given had no relevance to his queries and he was not given any information.
The respondent CPIO informed that the queries in this application pertain to third party information.
During the hearing the Commission informed the CPIO that an appropriate reply was not given to the appellant and the reply on record had no relation with the queries asked.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the appellant had sought personal information of third parties in all the three points. However, instead of giving an appropriate reply on these lines, the CPIO provided an unrelated reply which does not correspond with the queries asked. The appropriate reply should have been given seeking exemption under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, being personal information of third parties . The CPIO is cautioned to re- examine each point of the RTI application and give a relevant point wise reply.
Decision:
Though the queries raised by the appellant relate to third party personal information, the fact remains that an appropriate reply was not provided by the CPIO. Hence, the CPIO is directed to revisit all the points in the application and provide a point wise reply within 20 days from the date of issue of this order.
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