Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shubham Shankar Mohol vs Indian Institute Of Technology , Madras on 13 June, 2024

                                           के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                                   Central Information Commission
                                        बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                                    Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                     नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IITMD/A/2023/609309

                                                                       ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
 Shubham Shankar Mohol


                                            VERSUS
                                             बनाम
 CPIO:
 Academic Research IIT Madras,                                      ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
 Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 26.12.2022                    FA     : 27.01.2023              SA      : 18.02.2023

 CPIO : 23.01.2023                   FAO : 15.02.2023                 Hearing : 10.06.2024


Date of Decision: 11.06.2024
                                              CORAM:
                                        Hon'ble Commissioner
                                      _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                             ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Please provide the copy of rule under which the grades for undergraduate/postgraduate training have been awarded.

(ii) Please provide the copy of rule of grading publications.

Is there any differentiation in grades if a paper is a research paper/review paper/book chapter or if is published in a journal/conference or related to impact factor?

(iii) Please provide the review and grading system for awarding marks for a research proposal. Which factors were considered while evaluating the research proposal? Please provide the grading system for the corresponding factors.

(iv) Please provide the recommendation letters in my case by hiding the names of the referees.

(v) Please provide the basis of awarding marks for various projects or internships.

(vi) Please provide the copy of rule of grading and awarding marks for Ph.D. coursework.

(vii) I request you to provide an official document which contains all the metrics along with the weightage considered for evaluating each candidate for PMRF.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i,ii, v, vi & vi: Guidelines shared by the National Coordination Committee to the Nodal Coordinators and Reviewers are attached.

iii: Weightages for awarding marks:

Undergraduate/Postgraduate training- 10 Publications/Preprints- 20 Research Proposal- 25 Recommendation letters- 10 Projects, Internships- 15 PHD Coursework-20 iv: Recommendation letters are confidential information. v: See response no. iii.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.02.2023.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Deepa Venkatesh, Professor, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application as no information was enclosed regarding the grades for undergraduate/postgraduate etc. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 23.01.2023, wherein, complete information had been provided. For point no. 4 of the RTI application, she stated that recommendation letters contained sensitive information of recommending person and that disclosure of the same may affect the person's life and liberty, hence exempted under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI act. Moreover, it was difficult to segregate the third-party information. Therefore, she expressed her inability to provide the information to the appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 23.01.2023. That being so and the reply having been given, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 11.06.2024 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) O/o Deputy Registrar Academic Research IIT Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600036

2. Shubham Shankar Mohol Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)