Anjana U. vs Ministry Of Science & Technology on 23 April, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anjana U. vs Ministry Of Science & Technology on 23 April, 2025

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                      के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSAT/A/2024/611092

Ms. Anjana U                                                     ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Science & Technology                        ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                           :   21.04.2025
Date of Decision                          :   21.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           06.11.2023
PIO replied on                    :           09.11.2023
First Appeal filed on             :           20.11.2023
First Appellate Order on          :              - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :           13.03.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

1."How many Vacancies are existing for the post of Technical Assistant (Lab) - A

2. Total marks scored in written Test by each candidate who found a place in the Ranked List Published as Per Notification P&A.II/472/JSSC/SCTIMST/2022 dtd:13-10-2023.

3. Marks scored by each candidate in the Ranked list in interview / skill test.

4. How many vacancies are arising during the coming two years."

The CPIO, Ministry of Science & Technology vide letter dated 09.11.2023 replied as under:-

"Question 1 & 4: RTI request is in the form of questions. Answering to questions is not envisaged under RTI Act.

As per section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 'information" means any material in any form, including records, documents. memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars. orders, logbooks. contracts, reports, papers, samples, models. data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

Question 2 & 3: Information sought relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would Page 1 of 2 cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: U/s 8(1) (j)."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2023 which was duly adjudicated by the FAA and disposed off vide order dated 06.06.2024, which reveals that during the course of hearing, the Appellant was informed that "the number of vacancies for the post of technical assistant (lab) is five and as per notification". Information against queries number 2 and 3 were denied as third party information and query number 4 was rejected as a hypothetical question. Explaining the cause of delay in the order, the FAA replied that it was because of his illness that necessitated frequent intermittent leave and absence from hospital work.

Meanwhile the dissatisfied Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Dr. Eeshwar H P- CPIO/Professor of Neurosurgery was present during hearing through video conference.

The Appellant stated that she was aggrieved by denial of information primarily on her queries number 2 and 3, to which the Respondent present during hearing stated that the marks of individual candidates are not disclosed since it relates to personal information, disclosure whereof which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

Decision:

After examining the records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Respondent is directed to furnish the Appellant with (i) the cut off marks of the examination and (ii) marks obtained by the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent - CPIO shall file a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter.

The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission