Central Information Commission
Md Jabihul Quamar Jugnu vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 9 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BECIL/C/2022/637176
Md Jabihul Quamar Jugnu िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Broadcast Engineering
Consultants India Limited
(BECIL), RTI Cell, BECIL
Bhawan, C-56, A/17, Scctor-62
Noida, UP-201307. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/03/2023
Date of Decision : 07/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 14/06/2022
First appeal filed on :
First Appellate Authority's order : 30/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/07/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2022 seeking the following information:1
"The information needed pertains to the Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL), as per details given below:
1. Whether if any interview was conducted for the post of SENIOR CONSULTANT/ CONSULTANT (IT PROJECT MANAGER) vide advertisement no. 94. Yes or Not. If yes then when.
2. Did you contact the candidate (vide application number 276699) for the interview? Yes or No, if no then reason.
3. Whether if the results for the post of SENIOR CONSULTANT / CONSULTANT (IT PROJECT MANAGER) vide advertisement no. 94 has been declared. Yes or No. if yes then when.
4. Whether if the above-mentioned advertisement was cancelled? Yes or No. if yes then will be application fee would be refunded?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 14.06.2022 stating as under:
"1. No interview was conducted for Advt. No.94.
2. We have not contacted any candidates for interview because no application was shortlisted.
3. Please refer to information provided against point no. 1 and 2.
4. No, advertisement no.94 was not cancelled."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal (copy not available on record). FAA's order, if any, dated 30.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The Complainant telephonically informed the registry attached with this bench prior to the hearing that he desires to withdraw the instant matter.2
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO provided an appropriate reply to the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of this and considering the intimation received from the Complainant, no action is warranted in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3