Marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the examination for the post of Administrative Officer and the complete merit list - PIO: Information exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act - CIC: No further intervention is warranted in the matter
The Appellant sought following information:
1. Number of candidates applied for the post of Administrative Officer (separately for deputation and direct recruitment).
2. Number of candidates appeared in the examination for the selection of Administrative Officer in AIIA. (Separately for deputation and direct recruitment).
3. Marks scored by me and my rank in the merit list.
4. Marks secured by the candidates appeared in the examination and also provide a complete merit list.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 31.08.2022, as under:
1. 152 total applications received including 4 on deputation basis.
2. 52 candidates appeared including 4 on deputation basis.
3. You scored 77.50 marks and your rank was 2nd in the list. However, your name was not included in the Merit List, because of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of minimum 5 years of service in GP of Rs. 4200/-
4. This information comes under the purview of 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. of RTI Act, 2005 and hence cannot be provided
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 05.07.2022.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
1. Prof. M.K Vyas (CPIO)
2.Dr. Narayan (CPIO)
3.Mr. Rajkumar Singh (CPIO)
Appellant has not availed the opportunity of hearing despite service of notice.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that they have provide point wise information vide letter dated 31.08.2022. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Abhishek Mishra v. All India Institute of Ayurveda-(AIIA), CIC/AIIAY/A/2022/647519; Date of Decision: 14.09.2023