Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs Ministry Of Science & Technology on 16 December, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs Ministry Of Science & Technology on 16 December, 2022

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

                                      File no.: - CIC/MOSAT/A/2021/661862
In the matter of
Pradeep Kumar Mishra                                         ... Appellant
                                       VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Department of Science & Technology (RTI Cell),
Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Road
New Delhi - 110016
                                                             ... Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   05/08/2021
CPIO replied on                   :   01/09/2021
First appeal filed on             :   17/09/2021

First Appellate Authority order   :   10/11/2021
Second Appeal dated               :   21/12/2021
Date of Hearing                   :   15/12/2022
Date of Decision                  :   15/12/2022

The following were present:
Appellant: Not present

Respondent: Sanjeev Kumar Varshney, Head (International Corporate Division); Nandini Kanan, Executive Director Indo US Science and Technology Forum, present over VC Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information with regard to recruitment of Rajesh Arya to the position of Controller, INDO-US S&T Forum:

1. Provide a copy of the list of applicants shortlisted for the position of Controller, INDO -US S&T Forum.

2. Provide copies of the regret/ declaration email/ documents, if any, from the applicants who have not joined INDO-US S&T Forum from the selected list.

3. Provide the copies of the essential qualifications acquired by Rajesh Arya after joining Forum for the position of Controller.

4. And other related information.

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

The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 06.12.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED247065177IN. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 01.09.2021.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 01.09.2021, replied to the appellant and informed in respect of point no. 1 that the short-listed candidates included Mr. Rajesh Arya. In respect of point no. 2 it was replied that the Forum did not contact any other applicant. In respect of point no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application it was replied that the information sought is personal information and its disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information was not disclosed. In respect of points no. 5 to 8 detailed information was given alongwith the proper hyperlink where details are available.

The FAA vide order dated 10.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal and held that the reason stated by IUSSTF for withholding the sought for information is not tenable. The CPIO, IC Division was directed to ensure that IUSSTF provides all information which is not within the exempted clause (under RTI) to the appellant within 10 days from the receipt of the order. The CPIO submitted during the hearing that on 22.11.2021, the FAA's order was complied with.

The appellant in his second appeal dated 21.12.2021 submitted that after a lot of follow-ups, he had not received an appropriate response to his RTI related to the recruitment of Controller position at Indo-US Science and Technology Forum. This is totally against the recruitment rules and the selected candidate i.e Mr. Rajesh Arya does not have the valid qualification for this senior position.

His essential qualification is awarded from an overseas university but he is not in a position to provide the transcript of the degree certified by the Association of Indian University (AIU). The appellant may note that challenging someone's appointment is to be done before the proper forum as per relevant law. As far as the RTI Act is concerned personal information of a third party cannot be given. It is also important to mention here that the FAA failed to issue a speaking order, however, the directions given were duly complied with by the CPIO vide letter dated 22.11.2021.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission