Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Siddharth Joshi vs Iim Amritsar on 27 November, 2024

                                        के ीय सूचना आयोग
                                Central Information Commission
                                     बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                 Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                   नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं          ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMAS/A/2023/647261

 Siddharth Joshi                                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                           VERSUS
                                            बनाम
 CPIO:
 Indian Institute of Management                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Amritsar,

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 05.07.2023                  FA      : 04.08.2023            SA     : 04.10.2023

 CPIO : 04.08.2023                 FAO : 12.08.2023                Hearing : 20.11.2024


Date of Decision: 26.11.2024
                                           CORAM:
                                     Hon'ble Commissioner
                                   _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                          ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Total number of faculty in the institute belonging to SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category. Please provide category wise information and only include permanent faculty without counting vising or adjunct faculty.

(ii) For the period between January 1st 2021 and June 30th 2023, please provide following Category-wise (SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category) information regarding faculty recruitment process:-

a) Total number of candidates from SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category who applied for faculty positions during the above period.

b) Total number of candidates from SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category who were called for interview/seminar for faculty positions during the above period.

c) Total number of candidates from SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category who were offered faculty positions during the above period.

d) Total number of candidates from SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category who joined the institute after accepting faculty position offers during the above period.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i: Reply of point no. i is as under:

Sr. No. Category Applications received

1. SC 0

2. ST 0

3. OBC 1

4. EWS 0

5. PWD 0

6. General 15 ii: Reply of point no. ii is as under:

Sr. No. Category Applications received

1. SC 1

2. ST 0

3. OBC 2

4. EWS 0

5. PWD 0

6. General 13 a: Total applications received from 01/01/2021 to 30/06/2023 Page 2 of 5 Sr. No. Category Applications received

1. General 294 2. OBC 90 3. SC 33 4. ST 7 5. EWS 3 Total 427 *PWD-6 b: Candidates who were called for interview from 01/01/2021 to 30/06/2023 Sr. No. Category Called for interview

1. General 46

2. OBC 11

3. SC 9

4. ST 1 Total 67 c: Candidates to whom offer letters were extended from 01/01/2021 to 30/06/2023 Sr. No. Category Offered positions

1. General 14

2. OBC 2

3. SC 4 Total 20 d: Candidates who joined the institute after accepting faculty positions offer during the above period:

Sr. No. Category Applications received

1. SC 1

2. ST 0

3. OBC 2

4. EWS 0

5. PWD 0

6. General 12 Total 15 Page 3 of 5

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.10.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Dy. Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the CPIO has provided the number of applications received, however he had asked for total number of faculty in the institute belonging to SC, ST, OBC, EWS, PWD and General Category.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that due to typographical error in the reply dated 04.08.2023, in column it was written "application received" in the place of number of faculty, however, he assured the Commission that he will file a revised reply ratifying the said typographical error.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that during the hearing the CPIO clarified on the typographical error in their earlier reply and assured to furnish a revised reply. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised reply based on the submission given during the hearing to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 26.11.204 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Management Amritsar, CPIO, RTI Cell, PTI Building, Inside Govt. Polytechnic Campus, Polytechnic Road, P.O. Chheharata, G.T. Road, Amritsar-143105

2. Siddharth Joshi Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)