Central Information Commission
T Prasada Rao vs Agricultural Scientists Recruitment ... on 13 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AGSRB/A/2024/111739.
Shri. T Prasada Rao. ...
अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रततिादीगण /Respondent
Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board.
Date of Hearing : 06.06.2025
Date of Decision : 06.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.06.2023
PIO replied on : 19.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 22.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 17.10.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 24.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"ICAR-NET 2003 and 2004 notifications Results pertaining to Animal Biochemistry or Veterinary Biochemistry
5.No. Name of the Candidate Hall Ticket Number 2003 Notification 2004 Notification"
The CPIO vide letter dated 19.09.2023 replied as under:-
"Request for information under RTI Act is unclear, please provide additional details for clarification."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2023 stated as under :-
"Under consideration is appeal dated 22.09.2023 from Sh. Thavitiki Prasada Rao, Andhra Pradesh.
I have considered the submissions made by appellant as well as reply given by CPIO vide F.no.5 (58)/2023-Exam dated 19.09.2023. It is Page 1 stated that the applicant is asking for third party information, which can't be given under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 05.06.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under;
"..3. Actually, in his RTI application he had sought result of Veterinary Biochemistry/ Animal Biochemistry discipline, which is not a discipline in ICAR-NET 2003 Examination. However, in ICAR NET-2003 Examination, there was a discipline named Biochemistry (Animal Science).
4. Further, the demand of photocopies of NET Certificates of other candidates and the fact that result of a particular discipline contains the personal details of other candidates as well like- Name, Roll Number, Category and Exam Centre, and therefore treating the information as a Third Party Information, First Appellate Authority disposed of the Candidate's Appeal vide Letter Dated 17th October, 2023.
5. Also it is pertinent to mention that NET Examination is a Qualifying Examination /Eligibility Examination (having a fixed minimum qualifying marks) and not a Competitive Examination for any recruitment..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Naveen Kumar, CPIO- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant has submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he has sought information related to results pertaining to Animal Biochemistry or Veterinary Biochemistry which has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the Appellant had sought result of Veterinary Biochemistry/ Animal Biochemistry discipline, which is not a discipline in ICAR-NET 2003 Examination. However, in ICAR NET-2003 Examination, there was a discipline named Biochemistry. Furthermore, the query raised in the RTI Application is not clear and same relates to personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Page 2 Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रतत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)