Central Information Commission
Pijus Kanti De vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 18 June, 2020
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
File no.: CIC/NITCL/A/2020/111387
In the matter of:
Pijus Kanti De
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Institute of Technology Calicut,
Kozhikode, Kerala - 673601
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 30/09/2019 CPIO replied on : 24/10/2019 First appeal filed on : 06/12/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 13/02/2020 Second Appeal dated : 02/03/2020 Date of Hearing : 16/06/2020 Date of Decision : 16/06/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: S.Sreedha, Assistant Registrar and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the definition of "Institute of repute", at NIT Calicut which is duly approved by the following Authorities of NIT Calicut and adopted by NIT Calicut for faculty recruitment against MHRD new recruitment rules during 01/07/2017 to 31/12/2018:
1.1 BOG NIT Calicut 1.2 MHRD New Delhi 1 Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further pointed out that the NIT Allahabad, NIT Jalandhar etc have their well defined rules and therefore, the reply of the CPIO, Calicut should not be accepted. He further expressed his anguish by stating that the rules should be in written form and cannot be verbal and the matter is related to larger public interest so the information sought must be provided.
The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.10.2019. She also pointed out that during 2017-18, the guidelines laid down by the MHRD were being followed. She also submitted that a similar RTI application was again filed by the appellant on 07.12.2019 and this is clear misuse of the RTI Act by the appellant.
She further submitted that the appellant so far had filed 4 RTI applications, 3 appeals with the FAA and the present appeal with the CIC. All his RTI applications and appeals are concerned with the definition of "Institute of Repute" mentioned in the Recruitment Rules of Faculty Members of the National Institutes of Technology. This Institute has provided the copy of MHRD letter dated 16.04.2019 defining the term "Institute of repute" against his initial RTI dated 06.05.2019. Further it is understood that the petitioner made similar RTI application(s) to the CPIO of MHRD.
She further pointed out that once the information has been furnished to his earlier RTI application, he made a fresh RTI application dated 30.09.2019 (addressed to the Registrar of the Institute, who is the appellate authority), which is concerned with the present appeal, in a modified manner by restricting the scope to "definition of "institute of repute" approved by the (i) Board of Governors of the Institute and (ii) MHRD and adopted by the NIT Calicut during the recruitment held between 01.07.2017 and 31.12.2018."
She summed up stating that there is no information available in connection with the definition of "Institute of Repute" approved either by the Board of Governors or the MHRD for the said period. The recruitments of the Institute to the faculty positions are being carried out as per the guidelines provided by the MHRD and as per the provisions of National Institutes of Technology, Science Education & Research Act 2007 & First Statutes of National Institutes of Technology.2
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had replied vide letter dated 24.10.2019 as follows:
"1. There is no document approved by BOG NIT Calicut, giving the definition of "Institute of Repute" at NIT Calicut.
2. Guidelines issued by MHRD New Delhi from time to time was adopted for faculty recruitment in NIT Calicut during 2017-18."
At the outset it is mentioned that being aggrieved with the reply dated 20.06.2019 vide which the copy of MHRD letter dated 16.04.2019 defining the term "Institute of repute" against his initial RTI dated 06.05.2019 was provided, the appellant filed the present RTI application dated 30.09.2019. The Commission on perusal of the reply by the CPIO vide letter dated 24.10.2019 found the same point wise and proper. Further, his contentions were taken into consideration by the FAA and as a result, the FAA further in his order mentioned that the CPIO under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Further it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2020 had also furnished the methodology adopted by the Institute during the faculty recruitments in the said period. The act of the appellant in filing another RTI application on 07.12.2019 is severely condemned, nevertheless the same was also replied by the Registrar on 13.02.2020.
Decision:
It is clear that there is no further information which can be given in this regard, and the appellant's grievance that there is no written rule, is not a matter to be solved under the RTI Act. The respondent has clearly informed that as far as faculty recruitment in NIT Calicut is concerned for the year 2017-18, the guidelines issued by MHRD from time to time was adopted. This is definitely a proper reply and cannot be faulted.
The appellant is advised to act responsibly and refrain from filing repeated RTI applications on the same issue which contributes to the burden of pending cases of the Commission and leads to unnecessary exhaustion of resources of the public authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 4