Central Information Commission
Govind Kumar Singh vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 7 December, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2021/656486
In the matter of:
Govind Kumar Singh
... Appellant
VS
The CPIO
(Academic Affairs),
National Institute of Fashion Technology,
NIFT CAMPUS, Near Gulmohar Park,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/09/2021 CPIO replied on : 22/10/2021 First appeal filed on : 25/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal filed on : 25/11/2021 Date of Hearing : 06/12/2022 Date of Decision : 06/12/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Garima Anand, Associate Professor and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide the status of the request dated 14.09.2021, sent by Krishna Nand Singh, student of Master of Fashion Management, NIFT, Chennai, to Director General, NIFT for allotment of Marketing Retail subject in Deepening Specialisation (DS).
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the information sought is related to his younger brother.
The CPIO reiterated the reply dated 22.10.2021. She further submitted that the reply contained the relevant e-mail dated 23.09.2021. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 22.10.2021 replied to the appellant and stated that reply to his request had already been provided by Head (Academic Affairs) vide e-mail dated 23.09.2021. He was informed that NIFT had laid down guidelines regarding selection of DS and its subsequent allotment based on the approved criteria.
The allotment of DS is according to the guidelines and is a software driven transparent process at NIFT. Further, the allotment is completely done at campus level. The matter has been flagged to the Campus Director and the applicant will get to hear from the Campus if his request can be accommodated.
The Commission observed that the information sought is related to a third party, and the same is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, there is no larger public interest in this case. Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is cautioned to be careful and follow the provisions of the RTI Act while replying to a RTI application. Be that as it may, no further relief can be provided in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2