Vipin Sharma vs All India Institute Of Ayurveda (Aiia) on 9 October, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vipin Sharma vs All India Institute Of Ayurveda (Aiia) on 9 October, 2023

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/AIIAY/A/2022/649485

 Vipin Sharma                                           .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 All India Institute of Ayurveda-(AIIA)
 (Ministry of AYUSH), Mathura Road, Gautampuri,
 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076,

                                                            प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   18.04.2022
  CPIO replied on                   :   12.05.2022
  First appeal filed on             :   25.05.2022
  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   13.09.2022
  Date of Hearing                   :   09.10.2023
  Date of Decision                  :   09.10.2023


                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya

  Information sought

The Appellant sought following information:

1. Whether Dr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Research Officer, CCRAS, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt of India had applied for PhD programme for the year 2022-23?

2. Whether he applied as service candidate?

3. Whether his application was considered as service candidate or not? If not, reasons behind it.

4. Whether he was asked for document(s) to prove his candidature as service candidate under point-7 of the para-C (Eligibility Criteria) under C-1 (Common Page 1 of 4 eligibility criteria of M.Phil/PhD" of the above said Ordinance-VI? Plz provide copy of communications.

5. Provide certified copies of Notesheet/ file documents/ minutes of meeting/ decisions/ and all related documents where his application was processed and denied as service candidate despite the provisions in the Ordinance-VI.

6. Whether the Online form made available by AllA for registration for PhD (2022-23) was having provisions for declaring as service candidate under point-7 of the para-C (Eligibility Criteria) under C-1 (Common eligibility criteria of M.Phil/PhD" of the above said Ordinance-VI?, If yes plz provide related documents showing the options.

7. Last year (2021-22) how many applications for PhD were received from service candidates under point-7 of the para-C (Eligibility Criteria) under C-1 (Common eligibility criteria of M.Phil/ PhD" of the above said Ordinance-VI to pursue PhD and how many had been given admission?

Dated 18.04.2022.

• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 12.05.2022, as under:

This refers to your letter RTI applications dated 18.04.2022 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005. Please refer Brochure (Bulletin) of Ph. D. Programme for the year 2022-23 on the website of All India Institute of Ayurveda (AIA). New Delhi i.e. www.aiia gov.in.

Information provides under RTI neither can be used nor can be provided for any other purpose.

• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 25.05.2022.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present Respondent: 1.Prof. Mahesh Vyas (Dean PHD & CPIO)

2.Dr Narayan , (PIO)

3. Sh. Raj Kumar Singh , (PA) Appellant has submitted that he has not receive the information. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information.

Page 2 of 4

Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that appellant has not the filled the requisite the form properly for obtaining the information. He further submitted that they have provided the available information to the appellant. He further stated that they have prepared the point-wise reply and they will send the same to the appellant. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest point -wise reply along with annexures if any, to the appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.

(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission