Central Information Commission
Salim Mohammad vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 28 April, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग , मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MORLY/C/2022/636810-UM
Mr.Salim Mohammad
....निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh,
Railway Colony, Near Railway Station,
Chandigarh - 160002
.... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2023
Date of Decision : 28.04.2023
Date of RTI application 14.05.2022
CPIO's response 18.05.2022
Date of the First Appeal 18.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 07.06.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-
The CPIO, Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh, vide letter dated 18.05.2022 furnished a reply to the Complainant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. FAA vide order dated 07.06.2022furnished a reply to the Complainant.Page 1 of 2
Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Gagandeep, Office Superintendent, attended the hearing.
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing.
The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that the Complainant had sought information regarding score of candidates called for skill test for the mentioned exam etc. He submitted that vide letter dated 18.05.2022, they had furnished a reply as per the provisions of RTI Act as per record available in their office. He said that the information sought constituted personal information of third party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, he said they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Complainant, he said.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 12.04.2023 which is taken on record.
The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by the Respondent and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितएवंसत्याभितप्रभत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] भदनांक / Date: 28.04.2023 Page 2 of 2