Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajkumar vs North Central Railway on 12 September, 2017

                                क यसूचनाआयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           लब बि डंग (पो टऑ फसकेपास)
                         Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        ओ डजेनयूकपस, नई!द ल -110067
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
                         Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
                         Email: [email protected]

File No.: CIC/AB/A/2016/901582-AB

In the matter of:

Rajkumar                                                       ...Appellant

       &

PIO,

Railway Recruitment Board,

Near Ram Laxman Mandir,

Subedarganj Road, Subedarganj,

Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211011                         ...Respondent

                                      Dates

RTI application                   :   Not mentioned

CPIO reply                        :   Not on record

First Appeal                      :   Not mentioned

FAA Order                         :   Not on record

Second Appeal                     :   30.06.2016

Date of hearing                   :   01.09.2017

Facts:

The appellant vide his RTI application dated nil sought information on 3 points regarding final selection under advt no. CEN No-02/2014 for the post of SSE, final marks scored by him in the written examination, categorywise cut off 1 marks scored, basis for the normalisation of marks in the said examination etc. The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 01.09.2017.

Grounds for the second appeal The CPIO did not provide the information.


Order

      Appellant          :     Absent


      Respondent         :     PIO, Shri Surinder Kumar, Member Secy.

During the hearing the respondent PIO claimed that he had not received the RTI application dated nil earlier and that he received the present RTI application along with the notice of the CIC's hearing slated for 01.09.2017 only. He further submitted that he had provided two replies dated 21.09.2016 and 25.05.2016 in regard to some other but similar RTI applications.

In view of the above, the Commission passed the following three directions:-

1. The respondent PIO is directed to affirm on affidavit to the Commission that the above stated RTI application was never received in their organisation within 07 days of the receipt of the order.
2
2. Since the replies dated 21.09.2016 and 25.05.2016 were not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send copies of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
3. Be that as it may, since no information was provided to the appellant so far, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3