Central Information Commission
Ghanshyam vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 21 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/NIFTY/A/2022/615603
In the matter of
Ghanshyam
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT)
NIFT Campus, Karwar, Nagaur Road Jodhpur
Rajasthan - 342037
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/01/2022 CPIO replied on : 02/02/2022 First appeal filed on : 02/02/2022 First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 15/03/2022 Date of Hearing : 21/03/2023 Date of Decision : 21/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Anil Kumar, Jt. Director/CPIO (Non-Academic)-Present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with reference to point no. 1, 3, 7, 8 & 9:
1. Provide details of employees who have been working on contract basis at NIFT.
3. NIFT has not provided information on its website as required in terms of Sec.4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Provide reasons for the same.
7. Provide details of duties and powers of various officials working at NIFT.
8. Provide directory of the officials of NIFT.1
9. Provide details of monthly remuneration of the employees of NIFT as also the system of compensation for the employees of NIFT.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal contested the reply given by the CPIO on points no. 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of his RTI application. He however remained absent for the hearing despite due service of the notice of hearing delivered on 13.03.2023 vide speed post no. ED914771905IN.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the initial reply and his written submissions. The written submissions of the appellant dated NIL and of the CPIO dated 13.03.2023 were received and taken on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
The Commission observed that the information requested for at point no. 1 was provided vide letter dated 02.02.2022 and the appellant was informed that the information on the remaining points was available in public domain on the website of the respondent authority. It was also noted that the CPIO vide his written submissions dated 13.03.2023 has also provided the specific web- links for the desired information. The Commission examined the said web-links during the hearing and found them to be functional as well as appropriate. The appellant failed to remain present for the hearing and indicate as to which link was not functional. The Commission was also apprised by the CPIO during the hearing that a copy of the written submissions dated 13.03.2023 was also given to the appellant. Therefore, the steps taken by the respondent in the instant case is satisfactory. No further action lies.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission opined that the disclosable information has been given to the appellant. Therefore, the instant second appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू 2 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3