Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar Arora vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 10 September, 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/ICARH/A/2024/638510
Shri Pankaj Kumar Arora ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(ICAR) Hqrs.
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2025
Date of Decision : 04.09.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.07.2024
PIO replied on : 11.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 21.08.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"I need following information about the Young Professionals (YP-I and YP-II) in ICAR System:
1. Can any person appointed as Young Professionals (YP-I and YP-II) in ICAR System take any other paid assignment in other non-ICAR institute along with job of Young Professionals (YP-I and YP-II) in any ICAR lab.
2. Can any person appointed as Young Professionals (YP-I and YP-II) in ICAR System do private clinical practice along with job of Young Professionals (YP-I and YP-II) in any ICAR lab."
The CPIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Hqrs. vide letter dated 11.07.2024 replied as under:-
"The requisite fees for RTI application have not been deposited."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.07.2024.
Page 1 of 2The CPIO, EQR sent a response dated 08.08.2024 stating that: "In accordance with Section 2(j), Chapter 1 of the RTI Act, 2005, query raised by applicant is not defined as "information" under this Act."
The First Appeal was disposed off vide order dated 21.08.2024 stating that the Applicant has been replied vide letter dated 08.08.2024.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 01.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO(EQR), ICAR reiterating the abovementioned facts and adding that: "the Department is also conducting appointment of YP-I and YP-II, as per guidelines, which is also enclosed for reference."
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri K P Tripathi - CPIO (EQR), ICAR was present during hearing.
The Appellant has not appeared for the hearing, while the Respondent placed reliance on the PIO's reply and the written submission dated 01.09.2025 mentioned hereinabove, stating that information available on record with the public authority has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the appropriate response in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly provided to the Appellant. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 01.09.2025, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter.
Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate and the Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case at hand, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off 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 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)