Central Information Commission
Saurabh Kumar Dixit vs Jamia Millia Islamia on 13 February, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/JAMIS/A/2017/604210/00051
File no.: CIC/JAMIS/A/2017/604210
In the matter of:
Saurabh Kumar Dixit
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Administrative Block,
Jamia Millia Islamia,
Maulana Mohammed Ali Johar Marg,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi - 110 025
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/06/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 13/07/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 03/08/2017 Second Appeal dated : 09/08/2017 Date of Hearing : 12/02/2019 Date of Decision : 12 /02/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present Respondent: Shakeb A Khan, Professor and CPIO Information Sought:
The appellant sought the following information in relation to job positions in Department of Tourism, Hotel, Hospitality and Heritage Studies:
11. As the university advertised the posts of 01 Professor (XII Plan) and 01 Associate Professor (XII Plan); List of candidates with their work experience, educational qualifications, present place of employment and API Scores claimed by the applicants who applied for Professor (XII Plan) and Associate Professor (XII Plan).
2. He had submitted the documents containing filled proforma of prescribed Academic Performance Indicator on 03.05.2016. He wants to know his API score as finalized by the screening committee for the above job positions.
3. Reason for not considering his candidature for the Professors (XII Plan) or Associate Professor (XII Plan) interview
4. Other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply on point 1 and 2 of the RTI application. He also raised his grievance on point 2 of the RTI application stating that he had submitted the supporting documents to substantiate his API score but the respondent authority had not considered the same.
The CPIO contended that an appropriate reply was already provided as per record. On a query by the Commission as to how the CPIO offered inspection of information of third parties, the CPIO clarified that the bio-data of candidates like educational qualification, work experience are already in public domain and while disclosing the same they mask the address, date of birth, contact number of third parties which are personal information.
Observations:
The CPIO's reply is not on record. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal by enclosing a copy of the reply of the deemed PIO dated 2 File no.: CIC/JAMIS/A/2017/604210 27.07.2017. The appellant accepted that he received the copy of replies dated 10.07.2017 and 27.07.2017.
The Appellant submitted that the information sought for by him is concerning the applicants who applied for the job position and being an applicant for the same, he has the right to know the cause of rejection. Furthermore, he pointed out that the information desired by him are mandatorily to be uploaded on the university website for the information of public, as he is asking the documents which Respondents might have used in order to select the candidates for the interview. He also agitated on the issue that the Respondent had conducted interviews without considering his information.
On a perusal of the reply of the deemed PIO, it was observed by the Commission that the reply on all the points were proper except on point no. 1 of the RTI application. In respect of point no. 1, the list of candidates with their work experience, educational qualifications, only were disclosable and their present place of employment, API Scores claimed by the applicants who applied for Professor (XII Plan) and Associate Professor (XII Plan) are personal information of the third parties which are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent informed that the appellant did not turn up for inspection despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Decision:
The Commission treats the reply as sufficient for point 1 of the RTI application. In respect of point 2, the grievance relating to not considering his API score cannot be redressed in this forum. The Respondents have clearly indicated in their reply that supporting documents were not provided by the Appellant, but the scores were communicated. The appellant is advised to approach the appropriate authority for redressing his recruitment related grievance.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy 3 (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4