Central Information Commission
Siddhartha vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 8 January, 2025
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/NIFTY/A/2023/651980.
Shri. Siddhartha. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Institute of Fashion Technology.
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2025
Date of Decision : 06.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.06.2023
PIO replied on : 03.08.2023
First Appeal filed on : 20.08.2023
First Appellate Order on : 04.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 17.11.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Request you to please provide the following information with reference to the selection of candidates into the NIFT PhD Program. Would like to mention that the below mentioned questions are only for the NIFT PhD admission/ selection process and not for any other NIFT program (not for any UG/PG program)
1. How many full time candidates & part time candidates were shortlisted to appear for NIFT written PhD test in the following year under different categories (general/sc/st/obc etc)? a) 2020-21 b) 2021-22 c) 2022-23
2. How many full time candidates & part time candidates Qualified the Written test in the following year in different categories (general/sc/st/obc etc)? a) 2020-21 b) 2021-22 c) 2022-23
3. What was the cut off marks limit of the written test for the following year in different categories (general/sc/st/obc etc)? a) 2020-21 b) 2021-22 c) 2022-23
4. Was the score card of written test given to all the candidates who appeared/qualified the NIFT written test in the year 2020-21? a) 2020-21 b) 2021-22 c) 2022-23 Etc."
The CPIO, Deputy Director, NIFT vide letter dated 03.08.2023 replied as under:
"1. No. of candidates shortlisted to appear for written exam:- a) 2020-21-32 Full Time:- 13 Part Time: 19 b) 2021-22-38 Full Time:-14 Part Time:-24 b) 2022-23-25 Full Time:-15 Part Time:-10 Page 1
2. No of candidates qualified the written exam:- a) 2020-21-11 Full Time:-03 (Open-03) Part Time:- 08 (Open-7, OBC(NCL)-1) b) 2021-22-09 Full Time:- 05 (Open-02, SC-01, OBC(NC)-02) Part Time:-04 (Open-3, OBC(NC)-01)
b) 2022-23-03 Full Time:- 01 (OBC(NC)-01) Part Time:-02 (Open-02) 3 The information relating to cut off marks cannot be shared as disclosure of the same would affect the confidentiality and integrity of the examination process and is exempted from disclosure under Sec. 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. Only the names of qualifying candidates displayed on NIFT website, who then have to appear for research proposal presentation and interview. No such policy is there to disclose the marks to the candidates 5 Please refer reply given at point no. 3
6. No such policy is there to provide the carbon copy of OMR sheets of the written test.
7. No such policy is there to retain the question paper of written exam by the candidate.
8 9 NIFT Regulation for Doctor of Philosophy has 5 seats for NIFT Teaching Fellows (NTFS) each year. There is no limit on the number of seats in any other category.
Etc."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 04.08.2023 stated as under:-
"Please provide the requested information sought under appeal dated 20.08.2023. Aggrieved by the reply of CPIO(Admission), the Appellant has sent his 1st Appeal dated 20.08.2023. The appeal has been examined on the basis of the facts placed on the record and it is found that the reply given by CPIO is in order. As such, there is no merit in the First Appeal, the same is accordingly disposed. The Appellant has raised new queries/request for documents in appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellant cannot raise fresh request for information at appeal stage. The Appellant, however may file a fresh RTI application, if he so desires. If the appellant is not satisfied with this order, he may prefer a second appeal to the Central Information Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 within 90 days from the date of receipt of this Order."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 26.12.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh, DD(Admin), NIFT- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission. He further stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Page 2 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. The 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)