Central Information Commission
Suhail Ahmad Zargar vs Central University Of Kashmir on 8 February, 2022
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/CUOKM/A/2020/680284
Suhail Ahmad Zargar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central University Of Kashmir,
RTI Cell, Green Campus Ganderbal-
191201, Jammu And Kashmir .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/11/2021
Date of Decision : 17/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SarojPunhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 04/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 07/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 09.01.2020 seeking information regarding the details of appointment of all contractual consultants, including inter-alia;
"The contractual consultant posts advertised & filled in past 10 years along with below details;
1) Public Advertisement Notice Date along with the notification Number and
2) Advertisement Published Media
3) Application Submission last Date
4) Eligibility criterion
5) Number of valid application received
6) Number of applicants selected for interview
7) Number of posts filled
8) Duration of contact
9) Contract renewal criterion Basic Details Name Only Of the appointed Consultants with the details below Total period severed in the university till date how many times given contract was renewed in the serving period Note Please provide the information in electronic format only."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.02.2020. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.02.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Abdul Rasid, Deputy Registrar & CPIO present through video- conference.
The CPIO submitted that reply along with relevant information has already been provided to the Appellant.2
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to plead his case or contest CPIO's submission despite receipt of prior intimation of hearing from the registry of this bench.
In view of the above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3