Central Information Commission
Jyotsna Pandey vs Banaras Hindu University on 12 May, 2022
CIC/BANHU/C/2021/617170
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/BANHU/C/2021/617170
In the matter of:
Jyotsna Pandey ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Assistant Registrar,
Banaras Hindu University,
Recruitment and Assessment Cell,
Ajagara, Varanasi, U.P -221005
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 14.09.2020
CPIO replied on : 07.12.2020
First Appeal filed on : 16.10.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint received on : 09.05.2021
Date of Hearing : 11.05.2022
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice)
Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Jha, Section Officer and CPIO and Shri Rakesh
Kumar Shrivastava, Senior Assistant, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Varanasi.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/BANHU/C/2021/617170
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Complainant filed RTI application dated 14.09.2020 seeking information on the following two points and many sub points:
"With reference to the recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor in Physics with subject code 30312 wide the rolling advertisement No 01/2019 - 2020, please provide the following information.
1) As per the advertisement, there were 4 seats for Unreserved (UR) category, 3 seats for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), 8 seats for Other Backward Classes (OBC), 2 seats for Scheduled Castes (SC), 2 seats for the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and 1 seat for the Persons With Disabilities (PWD). Now provide the following related information.
a) Out of the total 20 vacancies, how many were the backlog vacancies?
b) Please provide the number of backlog vacancies for different categories.
c) How many vacancies were regular?
d) What percentage of the regular vacancies was allowed for the UR category?
e) What percentage of the regular vacancies was reserved for the EWS category?
f) What percentage of the regular vacancies was reserved for the SC category?
g) What percentage of the regular vacancies was reserved for the ST category?
h) What percentage of the regular vacancies was reserved for the PWD category?
2) As per the Recommendation-Sheet released by the RAC, BHU, which is attached herewith as BHU_document.pdf, there were a total of 877 eligible applicants against the 4 seats under the UR category. Please provide the following related information.
a) Why 240 candidates were shortlisted for the interview while the prescribed rule allows only 176 candidates, as explained below?
According to the Recommendation-Sheet, either 20% of the number of applicants, Or, 10 candidates per seat, whichever is more, should have been invited for the interview. Therefore, the criterion of 10 candidates per seats Page 2 of 5 CIC/BANHU/C/2021/617170 allows a total of 40 candidates, while the 20% of the applicants turns out to be 176 which is more. Therefore, a maximum of 176 candidates should have been shortlisted for the interview. However, on the other hand, the total number of candidates shortlisted for the interview were 240.
b) Why the candidates with score lower than 35 were placed in the category of eligible candidates, as appears below rank 869 onward in the Recommendation-Sheet, who even do not satisfy the minimum criteria as per the UGC guidelines, as explained below?
The minimum criteria for the post of Assistant Professor requires an applicant to have Bachelor and Master Degree with NET/SLET/SET. As specified in the Appendix-II, Table 3A of the UGC Regulation 2018 for the post of Assistant Professor, the minimum score awarded for Bachelor degree (with marks between 45% and 55%) is 10 and the minimum score awarded for the Master degree is 20 (with marks between 55% and 60%). Out of NET/SLET/SET the minimum 5 marks is awarded for the SLET/SET. Therefore, adding these together a candidate with less than 35 marks can not be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor."
The CPIO vide online reply dated 07.12.2020, informed to the Complainant as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2020, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records. Page 3 of 5
CIC/BANHU/C/2021/617170 Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a Complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of incomplete and false information provided by the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
At the instance of the Commission as to whether the Complainant has filed both Complaint and a Second Appeal on the RTI Application dated 14.09.2020, the Respondent replied in affirmative.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the subject-matter of the instant case has already been heard and decided by this Bench in another matter bearing File No. CIC/BANHU/A/2020/695127 on 11.05.2022. Accordingly, the instant Complaint is barred by principles of Constructive Res Judicata. No fresh adjudication is required in the instant matter. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 11.05.2022 Page 4 of 5 CIC/BANHU/C/2021/617170 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) /Joint Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Recruitment and Assessment Cell, Ajagara, Varanasi, U.P -221005
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) /Assistant Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Recruitment and Assessment Cell, Ajagara, Varanasi, U.P -221005
3. Ms. Jyotsna Pandey Page 5 of 5