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/2019/600928
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 : 08/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 16/10/2018 First appeal online No. : UOALD/A/2018/60053
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. List of applications received for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017.
2. List of Shortlisted candidates called for the interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017.1
3. Provide the shortlisting criteria and shortlisting score of each candidate who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017. (category wise list)
4. List of selected candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt No. UoA/Asst Prof/02/2017 dated 29/08/2017 (category wise list).
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 he did not get any of the information asked for and was given irrelevant information.
The CPIO stated that a point wise reply was given. When the Commission enquired that for point no. 1 only number was given and not a list, the CPIO explained that some of the information is personal in nature and is exempted under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On point no. 2, he agreed to share the information but would mask any personal information. Observations:
A letter dated 16.10.2018 was forwarded by the deemed PIO to the CPIO and the same reads as follows:
"1. The applicatons received for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science against the Advt. No. UoA/Asstprof/02/2017 is 339.
2. List of shortlisted candidates called for interview was uploaded on PARIKSHA portal of NIC as per University norms.
5. The shortlisting criteria for teaching positions as per UGC regulations 2010 & UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. The information regarding the shortlisting score of each candidate was uploaded in PARIKSHA portal of NIC till end date of interview.
3. Information is not available in FRC."
There is no FAA's order on record and the CPIO during the hearing admitted that there is no FAA order but provided no explanation for the same. Since the reply given does not cover all the queries raised by the appellant, the CPIO agreed to provide a revised reply by masking personal information of third parties.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a point wise categorical and relevant reply within 20 days from the date of issue of this order. In case of any personal information of third parties 2 figure in the documents, these can be masked before sharing them with the appellant being duly exempt under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
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