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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrvenu Gopal Gajjala vs Ministry Of Rural Development on 14 August, 2015

                            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
                              OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI­110067


                                                                Decision No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001012/SB/
                                                                  Appeal No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001012/SB


                                                                                          Dated:  14.08.2015


Appellant:                                Major G.Venu Gopal, 
                                           H.No. 145/3 RT, Vijaya Nagar Colony,
                                          Hyderabad,  
                                          Andhra Pradesh - 500 057.


Respondent:                       Central Public Information Officer,
                                          National Institute of Rural Development, 
                                          Rajendranagar, Hyderabad,
                                          Andhra Pradesh - 500 057.
                                                                             
Date of Hearing:                          14.08.2015




                                                   ORDER

1. Major G.Venu Gopal, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI  Act)   on   05.10.2013   with   the   CPIO,   National   Institute   of   Rural   Development   (NIRD)   seeking  information on the following points:

1. Names of the faculty members on contract, whose services were regularized in  reference   to   letter   No.   K­15018/3/2D11/TRG   dated   31.01.2012   of   MORD,  Admn/A/A6/2011/36/11/ dated 11.01. 20    12 of NIRD vide Order No. 848.
2. Name of the faculty members, their appointment on contract, date of appointment  and   their   qualification   and   subject   of   specialization,   whose   services   were  regularized in the year 2012.
3. (a)  Name of  the selection  committee  members   constituted  for  regularization   of  faculty members on contract
(b) Names of the expert members and their field of expertise, who were present on  the day of selection.

(c) Name of subject specialist and field of specialization who were present on the  day of selection.

(d)   Name   of   the   representative   of   MORD   and   Executive   Council   and   their  particular who were present.

2.    The CPIO vide letter dated 16.11.2013 had provided information to the appellant. The  appellant was also informed of the charges towards photocopying of the material so that requisite  documents could be provided to the appellant on payment of the same. The appellant filed the first  appeal 25.11.2013 with the FAA on the ground that incomplete information was provided. The FAA  vide order dated 03.01.2014 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied the response of the  CPIO, the appellant filed the appeal dated 21.03.2014 before the Commission on the ground that  incomplete information was provided to him.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Major G.Venu Gopal despite notice was absent. The respondent Shri  A.  Devapriya, CPIO and Assistant Registrar, NIRD attended the video conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted that complete information was provided to the appellant vide  letter dated 16.11.2013. The respondent further submitted that the copies of documents were also  provided   on   03.12.2013.   The   respondent   also   submitted   that   the   FAA   vide   his   order   dated  03.01.2014 had clarified that complete constitution of selection committee was provided to the  appellant. The appellant was further informed that the relevant consideration for inviting members  in   the   selection   committee   was   knowledge,   experience   and   expertise   in   the   field   of   rural  development.

 Decision:

5. The Commission heard the submission of the respondent and perused the records. The  Commission finds that information as available had been provided to the appellant. Hence, no  further action is required in the matter.
6. The appeal is disposed of.  Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.

(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer