Central Information Commission
Dr Ritesh Kumar vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 25 January, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: -CIC/CMRID/A/2020/690266
In the matter of:
Ritesh Kumar
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
CSIR - Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR),
Barwa Road, Dhanbad - 826001.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2020 CPIO replied on : 03/08/2020 First appeal filed on : 15/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 15/10/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 24/10/2020 Date of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date of Decision : 24/01/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Pankaj Kr Mishra, Senior Principal Scientist & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of all the advertisements issued for recruitment to various posts at CSIR-CIMFR, Barwa Road campus, from 1998 to 2005.
2. Provide list of selected candidates in response to each advertisement from 1998 to 2005. Copy of marks sheets of educational qualification submitted at the time of selection from 10th standard onwards in respect of the selected candidates in response to each advertisement.1
3. Provide list of scientists in CSIR-CIMER who got merit promotion from 2000 to 2019 along with their qualification at the time of merit promotion achievement.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second appeal CPIO did not provide the desired information under sub-sections (e, g and h) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the information was incorrectly denied to him u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 03.08.2020. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 19.01.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on points no. 2 to 5 of the RTI application, the information sought by the appellant is purely related to personal information of third parties, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the CPIO had correctly explained that since the appellant has been suspended from services and an investigation is going on and the persons regarding whom information was sought may be witness in his case and while holding that the information was sought for personal interest rather than any public interest, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & (g) of the RTI Act. However, the FAA vide his order dated 15.10.2020 had provided an opportunity of inspection to the appellant.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether the appellant inspected any records, he submitted that he never came for inspection nor has he made any communication with the administration Division.
Be that as it may, since the information sought on points no. 2 to 5 are covered u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, no relief can be given. However, on point no. 1 the copies of all the available advertisements can be given to the appellant.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the sought for information on point no 1 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3