Central Information Commission
Mr N C Vijaykumar vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 28 July, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TELE: 01126161997
Decision No.CIC/SM/C/2013/000510/SB/
Appeal No.CIC/SM/C/2013/000510/SB
Dated : 28072015
Complainant: Shri N.C. Vijaykumar,
Doddamma Tayee Temple Street, Sahukar,
Channaiah Extension, Guthalu Colony Post,
Mandya, Karnataka571403
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer/
Under Secretary (Estt.D)
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 28 .07.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Vijaykumar filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 19.10.2011 with the CPIO/Under Secretary, Department of Law seeking information on the percent of merit considered by the Central Government Departments in promotional examinations. 2 CPIO/Under Secretary (Estt.D), Department of Personnel & Training to whom the RTI was transferred by the CPIO, Department of Law informed him that no material information in the form of OM/Circular/Order/Notes etc. is available. Not satisfied by this reply, the complainant filed first appeal dated 14.12.2011 to the FAA/Dy. Secretary (E.I), Department of Personnel & Training. Aggrieved that he did not receive any response from the FAA, he filed the second appeal with the Commission on 06.03.2013.
Hearing:
3. The respondent Shri S. K Prasad, CPIO and Under Secretary, was present in person. The complainant despite the notice was absent during the hearing.
4. The respondent submitted that there is no percentage prescribes by the Government in the departmental examination. He also submitted that there is no OM/circular/order in this regard.
Decision:
5. The Commission considered the submission of the respondent and perused the records. The Commission finds that the CPIO had responded to the appellant in time. This shows that the CPIO had the intent of providing information to the appellant. However, since, the appellant was not present more specific details of his request could not be confirmed to enable the CPIO to provide further information to the appellant. In view of this no further action is required in the matter.
6. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer