Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kishan Lal vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 19 September, 2019

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सच  ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                              Decision no.: CIC/JNUND/A/2018/133796/01682
                                          File no.: CIC/JNUND/A/2018/133796

In the matter of:
Kishan Lal
                                                                 ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
Room No. 133, RTI Cell, Administrative Block,
Delhi - 110 067
                                                                ... Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   17/01/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   15/02/2018
First appeal filed on             :   12/03/2018

First Appellate Authority order : 27/04/2018 Second Appeal dated : 29/05/2018 Date of Hearing : 19/09/2019 Date of Decision : 19/09/2019 The following were present:

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Dr Abha Yadav, Deputy Registrar and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:

Jawaharlal Nehru University had advertised on 19-25 October, 2013 for the post of Junior Assistant cum Typist (Total 34 posts - 16 UR, 1-UR PWD-OH, 9- OBC, 5-SC & 3-ST) and in this connection JNU had conducted the typing test, written test. In this regard the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copy of result of both the typing test and written test of the above cited post.
1
2. Name, Address and Mobile No. of all the candidates (category-wise) in accordance with obtained marks in written exams as well as in typing test.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant contested the reply of the CPIO and submitted an electronic copy of the impugned result.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given on 15.02.2018. She further submitted that the result is not valid in the light of the cancellation of the recruitment. She further submitted that the recruitment was cancelled as the Department of Personnel and Training on the basis of recommendations made by the Committee of Secretaries has already taken a decision to discontinue interviews at the junior level posts at Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted), Group 'C' ,Group 'D' (which are now reclassified as Group 'C') and all equivalent posts. All the advertisements for future vacancies will be without the Interview as part of the recruitment process. From 1st January 2016 there will be no recruitment with interview at the junior level posts, in Government of India Ministries/Departments/attached Office/Subordinate Office/Autonomous Bodies/Public Sector Undertakings.
The appellant at this point started shouting and showed disorderly behaviour in the court room of the Commission during the hearing. Despite repeated requests he failed to maintain the decorum of the Commission. He was told that his grievance regarding cancellation of recruitment cannot be sorted out by the Commission as this is purely an internal matter of the organisation. It is pertinent to mention here that the mandate of the Commission was to ensure that he received an appropriate reply to his RTI application. Internal matters of the University, such as cancellation of recruitment, etc. would have to be sorted out through the administration section of the University. Despite this, he was even given the reason for the cancellation as the University had to follow the directions of the Government on the recruitment procedure. Observations:
The Commission is not a grievance redressal authority. In the garb of obtaining information, the appellant is trying to redress his grievances. Further, the 2 File no.: CIC/JNUND/A/2018/133796 appellant has not shown any respect towards the cherished Act too. It is necessary that decorum has to be maintained at all times and even when the contention is justified it must be in a language of utmost restraint, always keeping in view that the person making the comment is also fallible. The appellant is advised to maintain good behaviour in future when addressing a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial body. In so far as information sought is concerned, the CPIO is directed to give a revised reply as to the status of the result being shown by the appellant during hearing, with the sequence of events, leading up to the cancellation of recruitment within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                             Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                     Information Commissioner (सच
                                                                ू ना 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