Central Information Commission
Dr. T.R. Bandyopadhyay vs National Institute Of Technology ... on 15 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002666/5890
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002666
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. T.R. Bandyopadhyay,
House No. DS-19/B, National Institute of
Technology Campus,
Durgapur - 713209. (W.B).
Respondent : Public Information Officer
National Institute of Technology -Durgapur, Mahatma Gandhi Avenue, Durgapur - 713209, (W.B).
RTI application filed on : 06-05-2009 PIO replied : 22-07-2009 First appeal filed on : 23-07-2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not replied Second Appeal received on : 21-10-2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 05/11/2009 Hearing Held on : 15-12-2009
The Appellant had sought following information from PIO - NIT - Durgapur regarding name, post, qualifications, date of joining and the department of the faculty members, Name of 'Several faculty members', certified copy of the Notification/Circular of the concerned department of the MHRD, details of the names, department of the beneficiaries and date of effect, names of the members of the selection committee etc. S. No. Information sought. The PIO's reply.
1. The name, post, qualifications, date of The Photocopy of minutes of the 7the joining and the department of the faculty BoG of the Institute vide minutes of item members who have been recruited on a No. 7.08 has no mention of any contractual basis and subsequently names/posts/qualification/date of joining regularized without any selection process. and the department of faculty member.
However, the agenda item no. 103.6 and minutes of 103.6 of the 103rd meeting of REC Durgapur may be referred to, photocopy had been supplied to the appellant.
2. Name of 'Several faculty members' who The photocopy of the minutes of the 7the had been regularized 'In spite of the noting meeting of the BoG vide minutes of item to the contrary, in the Minutes of the 103' no. 7.08 there is no mention of names of Board Meeting. the faculty members. However, the agenda item no. 103.6 and minutes of 103.6 of the 103rd BoG meeting of REC Durgapur may be referred to, photocopy Page no. 1 of 3 had been provided to the appellant.
3. Kindly, being the highest authority, confirm The information sought is from the "whether faculty members initially highest authority. recruited on a contractual basis can subsequently be regularized without any selection process? If yes, please provide a certified copy of the Notification/Circular of the concerned department of the MHRD, Government of India, to this effect.
4. Whether those faculty members who had From the photocopy of the minuets of the been regularized 'In spite of the noting to 7th meeting of the BoG vide minutes of the contrary, in the Minutes of the 103' item no. 7.08 there is no mention of Board Meeting have been given the benefit names of the faculty members. of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)? If yes, please provide the complete details of the names, department of the beneficiaries and date of effect, arrears drawn, if any, of thereto.
5. The names of the members of the selection Reference may be made for the name of committee and date of holding the selection deptts/period or time span of such under Career Advancement Scheme for selection committee under CAS as from those faculty members. the photocopy of the minutes of the 7th the meeting of the BoG vide minutes of item no. 7.08 there is no mention of name of faculty members.
6. From which fund the salaries and other The salaries and other perquisites related perquisites of those faculty members are to salary of all the Faculty Members of being paid? NIT Durgapur, holding a permanent post are paid from the Grants-in-Aid under Non-plan (Recurring) received from the MHRD, GOI.
7. Details of the "Same case(s) are pending in From the photocopy of the minutes of the Hon'ble Court on issues concerning some 7th meeting of the BoG vide minutes of of the abovementioned items" as mentioned item no. 7.08 (ii) there is no mention of in the said Resolution. such court case.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Incorrect information had been provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
No order had been passed by the F.A.A. Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incorrect information had been provided by the PIO. No order had been passed by the F.A.A..
Page no. 2 of 3 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Dr. T.R. Bandyopadhyay;
Respondent : Absent;
The PIO has not provided adequate information and is directed to provide the following information to the appellant:
1- The name, post, qualifications, date of joining and the department of the faculty members who have been recruited on a contractual basis and subsequently regularized without any selection process.
2- Query-3: If there is any notification/circular of MHRD permitting regularization of faculty members initially recruited on contractual basis, this will be provided. If there is no such circular/notification this should be stated. 3- Query-5: The names of the members of the selection committee and date of holding the selection under Career Advancement Scheme for those faculty members. 4- Query-7: Details of the "Same case(s) are pending in Hon'ble Court on issues concerning some of the abovementioned items" as mentioned in the said Resolution.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information described above to the appellant before 05 January 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 12 January 2009 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (BK) Page no. 3 of 3