Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 8 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2022/644652
Shri Ajay Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, UT of Jammu and Kashmir ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2024
Date of Decision : 04.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2022
PIO replied on : 03.02.2022
First Appeal filed on : 07.02.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 23.08.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1) Details of all the candidates who had/have applied under ALC category for the post of Assistant Professor Geography in response to JKPSC Notification number: 10-PSC(DR-P) of 2017 dated 27-10-2017 (Item number 69). Following particulars of the candidates required: name, date of birth, actual address, full educational details including percentage of marks at all levels from matric to highest level.
2) Photocopies of all the documents which were submitted by all the ALC candidates (who were shortlisted for interview for the said vide notification number PSC/DR/AP/Geography/Hr.Edu/17dated 23-07-2019 and Notification No. PSC/DR/AP/Geography/Hr.Edu/17dated 20- 10-2020) at various stages till the completion of selection process. Documents must include certified copies of all the degree/certificates, certified copies of research papers, books and publications etc.
3) Names of educational institutions/Universities where from Geography subject experts were invited to be part of interview panel for interview conducted on 5;6 November 2019 and 23,24 November 2020 at JKPSC office Jammu.
4) Was there any subject expert from the same University/institute from which interviewee studied?"Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 03.02.2022 replied as under:-
"1&2. The information sought by you is voluminous and time consuming and if process will divert the time and resources of the Commission. You are advised to visit the Commission Office for the inspection of records.
3. Due to security/ secrecy reasons the details of the experts cannot be provided under RTI Act, 2005.
4. The information asked by the applicant is in the form of questionnaire. Public Information Officer (PIO) is not supposed to give reply/answer to the questions which are hypothetical."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.02.2022 which was not decided by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 25.03.2024 has been received from the Appellant narrating the detailed background of the case and has been duly taken on record. Another written submission dated 28.03.2024 has also been received from the Respondent PIO, JK PSC which reveals that the Appellant inspected the records on 29.09.2022 and was also provided photocopies of documents sought by him.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Dr. Vernika Raj - CPIO was present through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him, despite inspection of the records.
The Respondent reiterated from the PIO's reply and placed reliance on the written submission dated 28.03.2024 mentioned hereinabove to substantiate her contention that information sought by the Appellant has been provided multiple times, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions averments of both parties, it is evident that the Appellant had been provided inspection of records, and also copies of documents specified by him, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
It is noted that the written submission dated 28.03.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 28.03.2024 alongwith all the supporting annexures, within two weeks of receipt of this order. In the event, the Appellant so Page 2 of 3 desires, the Respondent may allow him inspection of records, once again, within thirty days of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)