CIC: Reply appropriately provides the permissible information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and his claim that his marks have not been provided cannot be acceded to as it amounts to asking for a new set of information at this stage

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 “The appellant had appeared in interview for Assistant Professor 1 in Production and Industrial Engineering Department at NIT Kurukshetra on 21 Oct 2022 under PwBD category Adv. No. 08/2022. Provide following information:-

(i) Minimum shortlisting criteria for the interview and criteria of components in shortlisting and selection process in category wise keeping in view the reservation rules are followed.

(ii) Complete data sheet of marks (component and category wise for all candidates those who success or unsuccessful) for all candidates those who appeared in interview on 21 Oct 2022.

(iii) Mention benchmark of grand total marks of candidates those who selected or not selected candidates category wise.

(iv) How many seats are filled on above selection criteria out of 99 opening and including 07 seats (including backlog already) reserved for PwBD.

(v) How many candidates had been selected out of 99 posts (mentioned department wise) on the existing criteria and how many seats are unfilled with reason.

(vi) Give the detail of expert like gender, category and sub category in that panel, is there any PwBD expert present in that period on 21.10.2022.”

2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, G B Samantray, Joint Registrar & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The Appellant submitted that earlier no reply or information was received in the matter except for an intimation regarding having forwarded the RTI Application to the CPIO on 14.02.2024. He further added that he has received a reply dated 21.06.2023 from the CPIO only yesterday and is unable to understand as to how the said letter was provided when it was only on 14.02.2024 that he received the intimation of forwarding of the RTI Application to the CPIO. Further, he urged that the CPIO has failed to provide the marks obtained by him in the averred recruitment, upon being pointed out by the bench that no such information has been sought for by him in the instant RTI Application, the Appellant argued that he had sought for his marks in an earlier RTI Application.

6. The Respondent submitted that the reply to the instant RTI Application has been already provided to the Appellant on 21.06.2023, wherein the personal information of third-party candidates was denied under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and (e) of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, at the outset is unable to appreciate the contention of the Appellant that he has received a reply stating that RTI is being forwarded to the CPIO only on 14.02.2024, while no such record is available to be perused. Further, the reply of 21.06.2023 appropriately provides the permissible information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and his claim that his marks have not been provided by the CPIO cannot be acceded to as it amounts to asking for a new set of information at this stage.

8. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Umesh Kumar Vates v. National Institute of Technology, CIC/NITKS/A/2023/635715; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024