Central Information Commission
Kripa Shanker vs Ministry Of Railways on 9 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/CC/A/2016/000497-AB
In the matter of:
Kripa Shanker
C/o Gulab Chandra
154/09 J K colony Jajmau
Kanpur-208010 UP ...Appellant
Vs
Central Public Information Officer,
Railway Recruitment Board
Opp GM/ NCR office Building
Near Subedarganj Railway Hospital
Subedarganj, Allahabad-211033
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 31.08.2015
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : 03.10.2015
FAA Order : 04.11.2015
Second Appeal : 07.12.2015
Date of hearing : 06.06.2017
Facts:
The appellant sought information on 3 points; list with full number/ marks awarded to candidates under Ex Serviceman category, who have been recommended/ selected for the jobs: 1. Commercial Apprentice and 2. Traffice Apprentice. Information regarding system for criteria of awarding was also sought.
The CPIO's reply is not on record. The appellant filed first appeal on 03.10.2015. The FAA vide order dated 04.11.2015 provided reply to the appellant's RTI application but denied the list of marks of ex serviceman candidates, being third party information. The appellant filed second appeal on 07.12.2015.
1Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : CPIO, Shri Surinder Kr., Member Secretary
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that there is no reply of the CPIO on record but the FAA vide his order dated 04.11.15 had stated that information cannot be provided as it is third party information, as follows:-
"List and marks of ExSM candidates selected for the above said categories cannot be provided being third persons information."
In the above stated reply, point no. 2 was not covered.
During the hearing the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 27.12.16 (on point no.2) which is just and proper and the case should be dismissed . Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the reply, it was seen that the first reply dated 4.11.15 was in time and point wise stating that the list of marks could not be provided which was clarified in another 2 reply of the CPIO dated 27.12.16. The stand taken by the FAA was just and proper. Both the replies are clear and comprehensive.
The information provided is just and proper, hence interference of the Commission is not called for.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3