Central Information Commission
Rounak Dey vs Netaji Subhas Institute Of Technology on 14 October, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No.: CIC/NSIOT/A/2023/632061
Rounak Dey .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Netaji Subhas University of Technology,
Azad Hind Fauj Road, Dwarka Sector 3,
New Delhi - 110078 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2024
Date of Decision : 14.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 16.05.2023 and 22.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 28.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.07.2023
Page 1 of 9
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2023 seeking the following information:
1. Provide the branch-wise average, median, highest and lowest CTC offered to students of Tadi/BE/BS and Int. Dual Degree(DD) in placement seasons of 2001-22 and available data for 2022-23.
2. Provide a branch of NUMBER of registered students versus placed students for B.Tech/BE/BS and student in seasons of 2021-22 and 2022- 23 (till date).
3. Provide the number of branchwise internationally placed students of BTech/BE/BS and IDD in seasons of 2021-22 and 2022-23 (till date) and provide the median and(or) average of said placements
4. Provide the institute-wide overall average and median CTC offered to BTech/BE/BS and IDD students in seasons of 2001-22 and 2002-23(till date)
5. Provide the branch-wise average, median, highest and lowest CTC offered in students of MTech in placement seasons of 2021-22 and available data 2022-23.
6. Provide a branchwise table of NUMBER of registered students versus placed students for MTech students in seasons of 2021-22 and 2022-23 (till date).
7. Provide the number of branchwise intonationally placed Mach students in seasons of 2021-23 and 2022-23 (till date) and provide the median and(or) average of said placements
8. Provide the institute-wide overall average and median CTC offered MTech students in seasons of 2021-22 and 2022-23) (till date).
9. Provide the number of offers received institute-wide of 1 cr CTC and above categorized by domestic and international in 2021-23 and 2022-23 (till date).
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.05.2023 stating as under:
1. Placements Data Q1 Year Average CTC Median CT Highest CTC Lowest CTC 2021-2022 16.8 LPA 16 LPA 120 LPA 4.5 LPA 2022-2023 18.59 LPA 18 LPA 60 LPA 5 LPA Page 2 of 9
2. No. registered students (B.Tech + M.Tech):- 1104, No. of placed students (B.Tech + M.Tech):-874
3. There is 8 students are got a placed in international COE-3, IT-2, ECE-3, No one got a international offer in M.Tech.
4.
Q4 Year Average CTC Median CT Highest CTC Lowest CTC 2021-2022 16.8 LPA 16 LPA 120 LPA 4.5 LPA 2022-2023 18.59 LPA 18 LPA 60 LPA 5 LPA
5. Overall CTC is mention in the point no. 4.
6.
Branch No. of No. of No. of %
students students Registered Students
placed placed Students Placed
(single (Multiple
offer) offer)
Computer Science Engineering 171 205 190 90
Information and Technology 108 129 117 92
Electronics & Communication 152 185 186 81
Engineering
Instrumentation & Control 127 146 176 72
Engineering
Manufacturing Process & 78 89 103 75
Automation Engineering
Mechanical Engineering 33 35 50 66
Bio Technology 20 22 37 54
M. Tech 104 124 196 63
7. No one got international offer from M. Tech
8. Overall CTC is mention in the point no. 4.
9. No, of offers received is mention in the past no. 6.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2023, held as under.
Q.No. 1, 4 & 7 : The decision of the SPIO is upheld.
Q.No.2,3,5,6,8 & 9: To provide the available information in the correct manner within fifteen working days from the issue of this disposal order.
In compliance with FAA order, the CPIO vide its letter dated 22.06.2023 had provided revised reply/information to the Appellant, which states as under:
For placement-related inquiry:-Page 3 of 9
Point no.-2 B. Tech 2021-22 Branch No. of Registered No. of placed students students COE 182 171 IT 112 108 ECE 159 152 ICE 162 138 ME 45 37 MPAE 103 92 B. Tech 2022-2023 Branch No. of Registered No. of placed students students COE 190 171 IT 117 108 ECE 186 152 ICE 176 127 MPAE 103 78 ME 50 33 BT 37 20 Point no. 3 B. Tech 2021-22 Branch No. of Placed students (International) 1 Crore CTC COE 3 IT 2 ECE 3 B. Tech 2022-23 There is no international offer Point no. 05 B. Tech 2021-22 Branch Median Highest Lowest COE 16 LPA 120 LPA 4.5 LPA IT 16 LPA 90 LPA 4.5 LPA ECE 14.5 LPA 40 LPA 4.5 LPA ICE 11.75 LPA 25 LPA 4.5 LPA ME 8.75 LPA 19 LPA 4.5 LPA MPAE 8.75 LPA 19 LPA 4.5 LPA BT 8.75 LPA 45 LPA 4.5 LPA Page 4 of 9 B. Tech 2022-23 COE 16 LPA 65 LPA 5 LPA IT 16 LPA 45 LPA 5 LPA ECE 13.5 LPA 45 LPA 5 LPA ICE 11.25 LPA 30 LPA 5 LPA ME 7.95 LPA 16 LPA 5 LPA MPAE 7.95 LPA 19 LPA 5 LPA BT 8 LPA 13 LPA 5 LPA Point no. 06 M. Tech 2021-2022 Branch No. of students No. of offers Strength M. Tech 178 24 M. Tech 2021-2022 M. Tech 140 5 Point no. 8 M. Tech Year Average CTC Median CTC 2021-2022 14.50 LPA 14.20 LPA 2022-2023 14.25 LPA 14 LPA Point no. 09 Campus Placement (1 Crore) Year Domestic International 2021-2022 NA 08 2022-2023 NA NA Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Ms. Astha Singh, Assistant Registrar & SPIO, Shri Rajesh Rawat, Assistant and Shri Sunil Kumar Raju, DA present in person. Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letters dated 16.05.2023, 15.06.2023 and 22.06.2023, complete point-wise Page 5 of 9 reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that copy of second appeal and written submissions has not been served by the Appellant.
On further query from the Commission, the Respondent apprised that they have the exclusive possession of such information and various applicants/agents are obtaining such information under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant is aggrieved that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent on point Nos. 1 to 5 of the RTI application.
The Commission observes that the Respondent vide their letters dated 16.05.2023, 15.06.2023 and 22.06.2023 had provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per the documents available on their record. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the Respondent.
However, the Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is marketable in IT enabled word in raw form through the traffic on sellers' website. The information in question has larger public interest more specifically as large number of students are involved, as such information is important for various students who are seeking admissions and also for prospective employer companies doing head hunting. The excusive possession of this information is lending commercial value to it.
The Commission observes that such generic information as sought in the RTI application must be put in public domain of Respondent Public Authority's website instead of providing to those who approach them either through the means of RTI Act or otherwise. The Respondent Public Authority can always mask the identity of the companies by grouping them into broad categories in Page 6 of 9 vogue and disclose the information upfront as per Section 4 of the RTI Act. Such upfront disclosure will help the students and at the same time protect the confidential information of various companies and also eliminate potential of marketing such information.
The Respondent should note that RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide maximum information in the public domain through the internet so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Further, once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, the same is no longer accessible as 'right to information'.
The Commission would also like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:
"25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of 'Monitoring and Reporting' conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority".
26. "For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor Page 7 of 9 the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act."
In furtherance to the above directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Secretary of Central Information Commission vide letter dated 12.02.2024, has requested the Respondent Public Authority, to take necessary action for implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Accordingly, the Respondent is advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking such information and not any specific record. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action. Let a copy of this order be placed before Registrar and Vice-Chancellor through FAA.
Be that as it may, it is noted that the Appellant has not served a copy of the instant Second Appeal upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Appellant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Appellant/Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject Page 8 of 9 or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
Accordingly, the instant second appeal is disposed of.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy to:
The FAA, Netaji Subhas University of Technology, Azad Hind Fauj Road, Dwarka Sector 3, New Delhi - 110078.Page 9 of 9
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)