Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mudasir Fayaz Kambie vs Health & Medical Education Department ... on 24 October, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HMEJK/A/2022/645622.

Shri MUDASIR FAYAZ KAMBIE.                                   ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Health & Medical Education Department UT of J
& K.


Date of Hearing                       :   22.10.2024
Date of Decision                      :   22.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        08.03.2022
PIO replied on                    :        NA
First Appeal filed on             :        10.05.2022
First Appellate Order on          :        NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :        29.08.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.03.2022 seeking information on following points:-

Please provide me below information regarding the cut off merit and my personal score in the selection list of MLHP /CHO posts for the district BUDGAM notified via SHS/NHM/J&K DATED 05-03-2022. With profound honour and great reverence, I want to table down following facts for your kind perusal and I also do seek the following information under the aegis of right to information act 2005 mentioned as under: 1. That NHM J&K invited applications for the post of MLHP /CHO in all districts of JAMMU and KASHMIR via notification number 18296-303, dated 30-12-2021. 2. That I have applied for the post in the cadre of district BUDGAM and have appeared in the examination held on13-02-2022 with the allotted roll number of 200185. 3. That I have been studying exhaustively for the said exam since last two years and I have done pretty well in the exam and I am confident of almost 105 correct responses given by me to the 120 questions. 4. That I seek information about my personal score in the exam and the cut off merit specifically in the selection list of district BUDGAM.

5. On which ground I have been dropped from the list. 6. Provide me the Page 1 of 3 photocopy of question paper (series -A) and answer key for the question paper so that I could check my scores.

Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2022. The FAA vide order dated 04.08.2022 held as under :

With reference to your First Appeal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, the requisite information is given below for your information and reference.

1. The merit scored by the applicant is 277 out of 480 ie; 57.70% (79 correct, 39 Incorrect and 2 unattempted).

2. The cut off merit for district budgam is 279 out of 480 ie:

58.12%. 3. Reason/ground for non selection is securing lower merit than the cut off.

4. Photocopy of the question paper (Scries-A) along with the answer key thereof is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively.

Written submission dated 10.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record perusal.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.

Respondent: Dr. Harjeet Rai, State Nodal Officer-participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO within stipulated time frame. He further stated that the information has been furnished by the PIO at this stage after delay of more than 2 years.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant. He stated that the score card of the Appellant has been provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, photocopy of the question paper (Scries-A) along with the answer key has been duly supplied to the Appellant.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)