Central Information Commission
Hilaluddin vs Indian Council Of Forestry Research And ... on 23 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/109026/00716
File no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/109026
In the matter of:
Hilaluddin
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education,
PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248 006
Uttrakhand
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/10/2017 CPIO replied on : 13/11/2017 First appeal filed on : 13/11/2017 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 24/01/2018 Date of Hearing : 23/05/2019 Date of Decision : 23/05/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Raman Nautiyal, Scientist E & CPIO, Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, Shri S Dhawan, Course Coordinator & CPIO, FRI deemed University, Shri S K Thomas, Deputy Conservator of Forests, FRI.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:1
1. Certified copies of documents/dossiers indicating fulfilment of conditions stipulated in Clause 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations for the appointment of Vice Chancellor i.e. "a distinguished academician with minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a university system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/ or academic administrative organization" by Dr Savita, IFS at the time of her appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of FRI Deemed University.
2. Inspection of above original records after delivery of above dossiers on mutually agreed date and time.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that misleading and vague information has been provided to him vide letter dated 13.11.2017 as he has sought application/ CV/ biodata of Dr. Savita indicating her experience as Professor and/ or equivalent position held by her in a reputed research or academic administrative organization at the time of her appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of FRIDU. He further submitted that the FAA has also failed to pass any order on his First Appeal and has wilfully violated the provisions of the RTI Act, hence disciplinary action against her may be initiated under the CSS (Conduct) Rules.
The CPIO submitted that since the subject matter of the RTI application pertained to FRI deemed University, the same was transferred to them on 11.10.2017. On receipt of a reply from them, an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant on 13.11.2017 annexing the reply dated 09.11.2017 of the FRI, deemed University.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the reply dated 09.11.2017 of the FRI, deemed University seems to be wholly misplaced and irrelevant as the appellant in his RTI application has sought copies of documents/dossiers indicating fulfilment of conditions stipulated in Clause 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations for the appointment of Vice Chancellor by Dr Savita, IFS at the time of her appointment which means that the appellant has sought a copy of the 2 File no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/109026 application/ CV/ bio data of Dr. Savita indicating her experience as Professor and/ or equivalent position held by her in a reputed research or academic administrative organization at the time of her appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor of FRIDU. The CPIO seems to have misconstrued the RTI application and provided information with regard to the implementation of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Resolution 2010 and UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) (amendment) Resolution 2014 and resolved vide Resolution No.5/2016. The CPIO could have clarified the contents of the RTI application from the First Appeal filed by the appellant to provide a relevant reply but the same was not done. It is also noted that the First Appellate Authority has failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon her under the RTI Act by not disposing the First Appeal till date.
With regard to the RTI application in question, the information sought by the appellant cannot however be provided to him as the same is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information of a third party and the appellant failed to show the involvement of larger public interest in seeking such information.
Decision:
In view of the above, no relief can be provided to the appellant as far as the RTI application is concerned.
On the issue raised by the appellant of advising the department to institute disciplinary proceedings , the Commission does not find any wilful or malafide intention on the part of the FAA to not provide information. However, both the CPIO and the FAA, FRI deemed university are cautioned to remain careful while handling RTI applications and to ensure that proper replies are provided to every RTI. In order to implement the RTI Act in its letter and spirit, the FAA is also advised to ensure that a speaking order is passed in every appeal within the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act. The present CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the FAA for her information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
3
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
Copy to:
The First Appellate Authority
Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248 006 Uttrakhand 4