Central Information Commission
Suresh Chand Pal vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical ... on 9 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IGTUW/A/2022/154985
Suresh Chand Pal .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical
University for Women,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07-05-2024
Date of Decision : 08-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17-08-2022
CPIO replied on : 14-09-2022
First appeal filed on : 20-09-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 20-10-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21-11-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17-08-2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"The following information may please be provided, in respect of recruitment Advertised vide No. IGDTUW/Recruitment/2021/2, under the Right to Information Act, 2005:-
a) What is the minimum and maximum cut-off marks under various Categories (i.e. UR, SC, ST, OBC & EWS) for selection of Assistant Professor (Computer Science & Engineering and Assistant Professor (Information Technology) respectively?
b) What are the final marks scored by the candidates in each category (UR, SC, ST, OBC & EWS) at various stages of selection for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science & Engineering) and (Information Technology), which inter alia included Academic score, Written Test, Presentation, Personal Interview, etc.?
c) What was the weightage (in marks) accorded to the Presentation vis-
a-vis Personal Interview?
d) Whether there has been any waitlist for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science & Engineering) and Assistant Professor (Information Technology). If so, the details thereof be furnished."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 14-09-2022 stating as under:
"(a): NA
(b): Information cannot be disclosed as per policy of the University.
(c): 15 marks for presentation, 35 marks for interview.
(d): Kindly refer to website www.igdtuw.ac.in."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-09-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 20-10-2022, held as under:
"The appellant, Public Authority represented by CPIO, Addl. Registrar (HR) and Registrar IGDTUW were present during the hearing. The appeal of the appellant was heard. The Deemed PIO, Add. Registrar (HR) gave his submission that the appellant Mr. Suresh Chand Pal was not a candidate in the selection Page 2 of 5 process of Assistant Professor (CSE/IT) and the information sought at 1.b was third party which cannot be provided.
The FAA directed the. Deemed PIO, Add. Registrar (HR) to provide information at points 1. a & d in the appeal as stated below:
1.a) Minimum and Maximum cut-off marks under various categories (i.e. UR, SC, ST, OBC & EWA) for selection Assistant Professor (CSE) & Assistant Professor (IT) respectively.
1.d) Waitlist for the post of Assistant Professor (CSE) and Assistant Professor (IT)."
In compliance with the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 02-11-2022 replied as under:
Question No. Marks of written test are below:
Assistant Professor (CSE) Assistant Professor (IT) Category Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum UR 64 73 71 79 Q 1(a) OBC 35 71 50 77 SC 45 61 No vacancy exits EWS 25 64 No vacancy exits ST No vacancy exits 25 61 Q 1(d) There was no waitlisted candidate in CSE and IT, as no suitable candidate was available in the panel.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. V.K. Chawla, Assistant Professor cum CPIO and Shri Subhash Agrawal, RTI Consultant, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.Page 3 of 5
The Respondent submitted that the relevant and available information in respect of point No. a, c and d of the RTI Application has been given to the Appellant and in respect of point No. b of the RTI Application, the same has been denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further, he reiterated that the Appellant was not a candidate in the said recruitment.
A written submission has been received from Dr. V.K. Chawla, Assistant Professor and CPIO, vide letter dated 02.05.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"The petitioner filed an RTI application dated 17.08.2022 seeking information on four points, which was responded vide reply dated 14.09.2022 as per inputs provided by the concerned section. The petitioner filed his First Appeal dated 20.09.2022. Subsequently as per directions by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.10.2022, further information was provided by the CPIO vide response dated
02.11.2022. Thus the petitioner has been provided replies to queries (a), (c) and (d) as per records available vide replies dated 14.09.2022 and 02.11.2022. However a consolidated response to query-numbers (a), (c) and (d) is again enclosed with these submissions for kind ready reference of your honour.
Information on point (b) is declined as exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal in nature in respect of candidates having appeared for interviews. Reference is invited to verdict dated 13.11.2019 (Civil Appeal number 2683, 10044 & 10045 of 2010) by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter "Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal" wherein the Apex Court observed as under: 59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, all are treated as personal information. Similarly professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is. indicative and not exhaustive. In view of above, it is humbly requested that the petition before your honour may kindly be disposed of accordingly. RTI consultant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal (Mobile Number 9xx00xx7xx) will represent the University during CIC-hearing before your honour."
Page 4 of 5Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the sufficient reply qua the instant RTI Application has been furnished by the Respondent and the Commission upholds the same. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing to contest his case. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)