Central Information Commission
Dr. Abraham Kuruvilla vs Shree Chitra Triunal Institute For ... on 20 February, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: -CIC/SCTMS/A/2018/164023/02937
File no.: - CIC/SCTMS/A/2018/164023
In the matter of:
Dr. Abraham Kuruvilla
... Appellant
VS
The Central Public Information Officer
Shree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences (SCTIMST)
& Technology, Biomedical Technology Wing,
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram - 695012
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 12/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 10/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 29/08/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2018 Second Appeal dated : 19/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 19/02/2020 Date of Decision : 19/02/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mrs P Nair, Representative of the CPIO, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information/documents:
1. All the Orders pertaining to the selection, selection criteria, the yardsticks followed since the inception of Sr. Professorship post at SCTIMST (from inception during the Directorship of Dr. K. Mohandas to till date).
2. Seniority list of Professor (Sr. Grade) since the inception of this post in SCTIMST.1
3. The copy of the Order followed at SCTIMST during / for the selection of Dr. Sanjeev V. Thomas, Dr. Asha Kishore etc to the post of Professor (Sr. Grade).
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO provided the false information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of valid hearing notice on 03.02.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED581095945IN.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant on 10.08.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant on 10.08.2018 and the FAA has also passed a detailed and speaking order. Since the appellant was not present to point out any deficiency in the reply of the CPIO or the FAA order, the Commission cannot give any further relief in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA dated 18.09.2018 and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2