Central Information Commission
Pranjal Kumar vs North Eastern Regional Institute Of ... on 4 July, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Complaint No. CIC/CC/C/2015/900200/MP
Complainant : Shri Pranjal Kumar Gogoi, Sonitpur (Assam)
Public Authority : NERIST, Itanagar
Date of Hearing : June 14, 2017
Date of Decision : July 3, 2017
Present:
Complainant : Shri Jeetu Parna Bhatta, on behalf of the appellant
- through VC
Respondent : Shri M.K. Camder, Deputy Registrar - through VC
RTI application : 16.12.2014
CPIO's reply : 03.02.2015
First appeal : NA
FAA's order : NA
Complaint : 08.02.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Pranjal Kumar Gogoi, the complainant, through online RTI application, sought information regarding faculty recruitment process based on Advt. No. 2/2014, published by the Institute. The complainant sought full list of all the applicants who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Dept. of Physics along with their academic qualifications; list of shortlisted candidates; short listing criteria for the post in question; list of applicants not called for the interview along with the reasons; venue and date of the interview; etc., through 11 points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UGC transferred the complainant's RTI application u/s 6(3) on 02.01.2015 to the Registrar, NERIST, as the information pertained to the University, for providing information to the complainant, directly. The PIO, NERIST, informed the complainant vide reply dated 03.02.2015 that the selection process was completed for the post of Associate Professors and Asst. Professors. The complainant, not having received complete response from the CPIO, filed complaint before the Commission and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information, on all the points of his application, as sought by him.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant in his written submissions alleged that the CPIO deliberately denied information to the complainant as the enclosed PDF file containing all the points of the online RTI application was duly attached by him in his online RTI application. The complainant's representative stated that the complainant was particularly not satisfied with the CPIO's reply to points 3, 4, 6 & 11 of his application as the CPIO did not mention the selection criteria adopted by the Screening Committee and that complete information was given to him only on 07.06.2017. The complainant's representative expressed a grievance that the complainant was also eligible for appointment but was not considered as eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in the Institute by the Screening Committee.
4. The respondent submitted that the complainant's RTI application was transferred to it by UGC on 02.01.2015 which was duly received by the CPIO on 12.01.2015 but, without any PDF which contained the detailed points made by the complainant and therefore, reply was sent to the complainant by the CPIO, accordingly through speed post. The complete RTI application of the complainant seeking information through 11 points was received by the CPIO only on 31.05.2017 along with the Commission's notice dated 31.05.2017 and therefore, reply/information, as per the available records, had been sent to the complainant within a week on 07.06.2017. They stated that the qualifications required were already stipulated in the advertisement for three posts and in toto 24 candidates were shortlisted by the Screening Committee out of 76 applications received based on their experience and educational qualifications and that there was no additional screening/selection criteria available with the Institute apart from the UGC norms prescribed for the selection to the post of Assistant Professor.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the available information, as per the records, has been provided to the complainant by the respondent authority in a point wise reply vide letter dated 07.06.2017. A public authority was not supposed to create information for the satisfaction of the complainant but, provide the information as is existing and available with it. This has been endorsed in several decisions of the Commission (Kamal C. Tiwari vs. Ministry of Defence; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00360; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006 and Subhash Chandra vs. Income Tax Department; Appeal Nos. CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00291; Date of Decision:
8.6.2007). The Commission further observes that since, the complainant's detailed RTI request was not received by the CPIO originally, upon transfer of the online RTI application by UGC, no information could have been provided to the complainant then. The delay in the CPIO's reply is .therefore. condoned. The complainant is however, advised for the future to make RTI application before the correct CPIO for quicker response. The complaint is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer Shri Pranjal Kumar Gogoi, North Eastern Regional Institute of Village & Post - Dubia, Science & Technology, District - Sonitpur, Assam - 784 178 05, Nirjuli, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh - 791 109