Central Information Commission
Mr.Saroj Kumar Sarkar vs University Of Hyderabad on 22 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110 067.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000682/3375
Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000682
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.Saroj Kumar Sarkar,
Flat 210, Block 5 A,
C.B.R. Estate, Deepthisrinagar,
Miyapur, Hyderabad-500 049.
Respondent : The PIO
University of Hyderabad
P.O. Central University Campus
Hyderbad-500 046.
RTI application filed on : 24/01/2009
PIO replied : 05/03/2009
First appeal filed on : 19/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not replied
Second Appeal filed on : 30/03/2009
Information sought:-
The Appellant had asked following information and copies of the documents regarding Selection for the post of Associate Professor (Reader) in Deptt. of Fine Arts (Painting), S N. School Hyderabad and Employment Notification No. UH/P-1/A3/Rectt- 2008(1) dated 28.04.2008 in his RTI Application:-
S.No. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Name of the persons who The list of candidates interviewed by the are interviewed by the Selection Committee had been supplied and Selection Committee for the details may be obtained from the said the post of Associate documents.
Professor (Reader) Department of Fine Arts (Painting) as referred in response to Employment Notification No.UH/P-
1/A3/Rectt-2008(1) dated 28.04.2008 and their qualification, experience etc.
2. The copies of the Copies of the application with enclosures of application with candidates interviewed by the Selection enclosures submitted by Committee had been provided.
such candidates for the aforesaid post of Associate Profess (Reader) Department of Fine Arts(Painting).
3. Copy of the The matter is sub judice, (W.P.No. 28774 of recommendation of the 2008). Hence the information cannot be selection committee. provided.
4. The marks allotted in The matter is sub judice (W.P.No. 28774 of each sub heads by the 2008). Hence the information cannot be members of the selection provided.
committee to the
applicant and to all the
other persons
interviewed.
The First Appellate Authority ordered. Not mentioned Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent Respondent : Absent The PIO has sent a letter in which he included the information of Mr. L.N.V. Srinivas that the information of Mr. L.N.V. Srinivas has been sent to the appellant on 21/04/2009. The denial of information on points 3 & 4 has been done without any basis in law. The only exemption of Section 8 (1) which might remotely apply is Section 8 (1) (b) which states, 'information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;' can be denied. This clause does not cover subjudice matters, and unless an exemption is specifically mentioned, information cannot be denied. Disclosing information on matters which are subjudice does not constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information on points 3 & 4 to the appellant before
5 June 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 22nd May, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AK)