Khurheed Ahmad Sheikh vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 23 August, 2024

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Khurheed Ahmad Sheikh vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 23 August, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

निकायत संख्या / Complaint No.              CIC/UTOJK/C/2022/651434

Shri Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh                                 निकायतकताग /Complainant
                                      VERSUS/बनाम

CPIO, Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection                   ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Board, UT of Jammu and Kashmir

Date of Hearing                            :   16.08.2024
Date of Decision                           :   20.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner             :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on                   :   02.06.2022
PIO replied on                             :   28.06.2022
First Appeal filed on                      :   Nil
First Appellate Order on                   :       - -
2ndAppeal/complaint admitted on            :   22.09.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.06.2022 seeking information on following points:-

i. "Photostat copy of CBT exam papers who qualify the Examination of Motor Vehicle Traffic Assistant vide Item No 87, 91 and 95 Advertised vide Notification No 04 of 2020 Dated:

ii. Photostat copy of list whose documents are valid during "Document Verification" of candidates and PS copy of valid 02 year Diploma Certificate and Driving License of qualified candidates."

The CPIO, UT of Jammu and Kashmir vide letter dated 28.06.2022 replied as under:-

"Point No. 1-2 The information as sought cannot be provided as the selection process has not been completed yet." Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Page 1 of 3

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Present Respondent: Shri Abdul Raqib Bhat, US The Complainant stated that the information sought was incorrectly and deliberately denied to him earlier stating that the selection process was not yet completed. He argued that the information can be provided to him at this stage if the selection process is over.

Shri Abdul Qafiq Bhat reiterated his written submission dated 08.08.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under. He added that the merit list of selected candidates was publicly notified after completion of the selection process.

The First appeal was disposed of vide No. SSB/RTI/Adm/Appeal/2022/113 dated 26.09.2022, with the directions to PIO JKSSB to provide the information to the appellant once the selection process for these posts is finalized/ culminated, subject to the conditions that the same does not fall under the purview of the Section 8 of the RTI Act 2005.

It is further submitted that the information sought with regard to CBT papers and Documents of the candidates who have qualified the exam, involves third party information, as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and cannot be divulged, as per the provisions of the Act.

Copy of the FAA's order dated 26.09.2022 is annexed with the written submission.

Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent within the stipulated time period.

In a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause. Furthermore, the legal position with regard to the powers of the Commission u/s 18 is no longer res integra since the pronouncement of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768- 32769/2010) decided on 12.12.2011 wherein it was held that Section 18 and 19 serve two different purposes and one cannot be a substitute for another.

Page 2 of 3

In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.

Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint which is closed accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 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