Central Information Commission
K Kumar vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BECIL/A/2022/600335
K Kumar .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Broadcasting Engineering Consultant
India Limited, RTI Cell, BECIL Bhawan,
C-56, A/17, Sector-62, Noida - 201307,
Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/08/2022
Date of Decision : 16/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 21/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 31/10/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 17/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/01/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 19.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"Before 2014, the details of the appointments made fir the following posts in the Technical Department of Electronics Media Monitoring Center should be given.
1. Post - Senior Shift Manager (A) notification of vacancy, 1 (B)date and details of notification published, (C) a copy of the official notice published in the Employment News, (D) If any written test has been taken, the details thereof along with the date and if the post has been appointed on the basis of interview, then its details such as the details of who were present in the interview committee."
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 21.10.2021 stating as follows:-
Ans. A. Copy of Notification of Vacancy enclosed. Ans. B. Copy of Notification of V3cancy enclosed. Ans. C. Notice was published on website of BECIL. Ans. D. Selection was done on the basis of Interview. Selection Committee consist of Chairperson from EMMC, One Member from BECIL, and two outside experts.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2021. FAA's order dated 17.11.2021 held as under:-
"the requisite information has been annexed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mahesh Chand, Consultant & Rep. of CPIO present through intra- video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the complete available information has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant in the grounds of the Second Appeal has alleged that the information was denied to him under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide the 2 reply of 21.10.2021. However, upon close scrutiny of the material placed on record, the Commission does not find any such denial of the information communicated to the Appellant in the reply of 21.10.2021.
In view of the foregoing observations and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or to clarify the said anomaly, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3