Central Information Commission
Chetan Sharma vs Central University Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CUOHP/A/2025/624129
Chetan Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
RTI CELL, DHAULADHAR CAMPUS-1,
DHARAMSHALA, DISTT-KANGRA,
Himachal Pradesh -176215 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.02.2026
Date of Decision : 24.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.03.2025
CPIO replied on : 11.04.2025
First appeal filed on : 15.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.05.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.05.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2025 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the following information regarding NON-TEACHING AND OTHER ACADEMIC POSTS(DECEMBER 2023 RECRUITMENT):-Page 1 of 4
1) Please provide the copy of Marks obtained by candidates appeared for the post of Statistical Assistant and Upper Division clerk with their roll no, whose advertisement was held in the month of December 2023 i.e. 1 December 2023 to 21 December 2023.
2) Please provide the list of selected candidates in Statistical assistant exam and Upper division clerk exam along with their category.
3) Please provide the cut off marks for the post of Statistical assistant for each category.
4) Please provide the cut off marks for the post of upper division clerk for each category.
5) Final merit list for the post of statistical assistant and upper division clerk for each category.
6) Selection criteria for the post of statistical assistant.
7) Selection criteria for the post of upper division clerk.
9) Please provide the cut off marks of preliminary examination for the post of statistical assistant and upper division clerk (category wise)."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.04.2025 stating as under:
"Reply of point no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 :-The information is not held in the University. Since recruitment is being done by NTA (National Testing Agency)."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 09.05.2025,stated as under:-
"क. के य लोक सूचना अ धकार -सह-जनसंपक अ धकार , ह. .के. व.
वारा तुत अ भलेख के अनुसार अपीलकता को प सं. 4-
1/ ह. .के. व./सा./ ./2010/XX/51, दनांक 11.04.2025 के मा यम से
नधा रत उ र/सूचना े षत कर द गई है । अतः इस संबंध म कोई
कारवाई/जानकार अपे त नह ं है ।
ख. अपीलकता वारा आपने अपील आवेदन म आरट आई अ ध नयम, 2005 क धारा 6 (3) के तहत उ त आरट आई आवदे न को 05 दन के अंदर संबं धत public authority को transfer न कए जाने को लेकर आप क गई है । इस संबंध म आवेदक को यह प ट हो क क य लोक सूचना अ धकार वारा केवल उ ह ं आरट आई आवेदन को transfer कया जाता है, िजनके बारे म Page 2 of 4 ारं भक तर पर ह यह प ट हो क मांगी गई सूचना कसी अ य public authority से संबं धत है । जब क व व व यालय वारा आवेदक के उ त आरट आई आवेदन के तहत मांगी गई सूचना को एक करने क या के दौरान ह यह त य सामने आया क रोजगार सूचना सं. 002/2023 के तहत व व व यालय म श केतर क मय क भत एनट ए के मा यम से क गई थी (आवेदक वारा भी अपने आरट आई आवेदन म एनट ए के मा यम से भत का कोई उ लेख नह ं कया गया था)। चूं क आवेदन ा त होने के 05 दन के अंदर यह प ट नह ं था क वां छत सूचना अ य public authority के पास उपल ध है , अतः उ त आरट आई आवेदन को transfer नह ं कया जा सका।"
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that CPIO should have transferred the RTI application under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned Public Authority.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Sanjeev, Asst. Registrar/PIO along with Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, Deemed PIO present through video conference.
5. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
6. On being pointed out by the hearing Bench, that the initial reply of the CPIO intimating that concerned record is someone else is not appropriate in terms of RTI Act, 2005. In response to it, the PIO stated that since the exams for the subject recruitment has been conducted by NTA and it did not attain finality at the relevant time, therefore, it was informed to the Appellant that concerned record holder of information sought is National Testing Agency (NTA). CPIO further stated that as on date, the relevant information is available in their office and he volunteered to provide revised reply along with relevant permissible information to the Appellant.
Decision:
7. Heard the party appeared.
8. Having a look on the records of this Appeal in hand and considering the submissions of the CPIO tendered during hearing that he is in possession of the Page 3 of 4 entire records of information and expressed his willingness to provide revised point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information to the Appellant.
9. In light of above discussion, this Second Appeal is allowed and the impugned decisions of the CPIO being not as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is set aside. The Commission deems it fit to direct, Shri Sanjeev, Asst. Registrar/PIO to revisit the contents of RTI application and provide a revised point-wise reply along with the list of selected candidates for the post of senior assistant and UDC, their marks, cut off marks, selection criteria and other related information as sought by the Appellant for the subject posts. The reply shall be provided to the Appellant, free of cost within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी)
Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित)
(Anil Kumar Mehta)
Dy. Registrar
011- 26767500
Date
Shri Chetan Sharma
Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)