Central Information Commission
Sanjay Jayaram Salve vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 27 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIRIN/A/2017/604008
Sanjay Jayaram Salve
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO (WR) & GM - Personnel Air India Ltd.,
RTI Cell, O/o the CPIO, 2nd Floor, Tech
Bldg No. 14, Old Airport, Kalina,
S'cruz (E), Mumbai - 400029. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 25.05.2017
CPIO reply : 29.05.2017
First Appeal : 19.06.2017
FAA Order : 05.07.2017
Second Appeal : 28.07.2017
Date of hearing : 19.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 25.05.2017 sought information as under:
B. Appellant's Interview results for the post of Consultant-FS (pilot) and Consultant-FS.
C(1). List of selected candidates for both positions C(2). Religion and caste certificates if applicable. C(3). Education level.
C(4). License certificates if any C(5). Total experience in years with certificates. Page 1 of 3 C(6). Marks and Ranks obtained in the interview. The CPIO replied on 29.05.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 19.06.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 05.07.2017 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 28.07.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Jagdish Kumar,
Assistant General Manager cum APIO,
Air India Ltd.
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 29.05.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 05.07.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant was not present to plead for this case. On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant. Information on point no. B is to be provided to the appellant. It was also noted that the sought for information on point C (1-6) is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the same cannot be provided to the appellant but a clear and categorical reply should be provided in this context to the appellant.
The sought for information on point no. 3(iii) of the above stated RTI application is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI. Hence, the same cannot be provided to the appellant.
Page 2 of 3Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant on point no B of the above stated RTI application , the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised reply as discussed during the hearing free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date Page 3 of 3