Central Information Commission
Jayant Kumar vs Csio,Chandigarh on 29 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CSIOC/A/2022/658932.
Shri Jayant Kumar. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
CSIO, Chandigarh.
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024
Date of Decision : 25.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.08.2022
PIO replied on : 05.09.2022
First Appeal filed on : 03.09.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Respected Sir Please provide the information regarding the RECRUITMENT of Project Staff having qualifications B.E./B.Tech or M.E/M.Tech for SRF/JRF/PA
1. If a candidate is Selected for any Project and His GATE Score Card is not valid then, in that case, will he get the benefits of GATE, and Will his stipend be as per GATE stipend?"
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.09.2022 replied as under:-
"The pointwise reply to your RTI queries is as under:
CSIR-TMD (Technology management Directorate) vide OM No. 4/CMG/2020-TMD dated 13/08/2020 and 09/03/2021 has adopted guidelines regarding recruitment and remuneration of project staff as notified vide DST OM No. SR/S9/2-05/2019 dated 10/07/2020 and its addendum dated 25/02/2021. Copies of respective OMs are attached."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Page 1 of 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conferencing. Respondent: Mr. Umesh Tiwari, CPIO/Sr. Principal Scientist The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information furnished by the PIO is incomplete. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought. The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that the queries raised by the Appellant are clarificatory in nature and do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seeker and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)