Respondent: Information involved procedure followed by the University on the basis of marks of multiple candidates - CIC: Relevant exemption clauses u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act were not cited by the erstwhile CPIO; Re-visit point no. (v) of RTI application
19 Feb, 2024
Respondent clarified that the information involved procedure followed by the University on the basis of marks of third parties - Respondent: The note sheets prepared for proposal of addendum involved preparation of cut-off marks and final selection list through scrutiny of other candidates, i.e. third parties - CIC: The relevant exemption clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act were not cited by the erstwhile CPIO; Respondent directed to re-visit point no. (v) of the RTI application and provide revised reply by citing exemption clauses under the provisions of RTI Act
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
i) Please inform the total number of applications received for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor (Category wise for UR, SC, OBC and EWS Categories) with Tourism Management as specialization.
(ii) Please inform the total number of applications received for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor (Category wise for UR, SC, OBC and EWS Categories) with Hotel Management as specialization.
(iii) For the post of Assistant Professor, please inform the category wise CUT Off marks applied for shortlisting the candidates for interview(s) held on 04- 05th Aug 2022.
(iv) For the post of Assistant Professor, please inform the number of candidates (category wise) called and number of candidates (category wise) who appeared for interview(s) held on 04-05th Aug 2022, etc. other related information.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) Professor-0
Associate professor-03
Assistant Professor-116
(UR-41, OBC-35, SC-28, EWS-12)
(ii) Professor-0
Associate professor-0
Assistant Professor-50
(UR-26, OBC-08, SC-11, EWS-05)
(iii) UR (Tourism)-78, UR (Hotel)-46
EWS (Tourism)-45, EWS (Hotel)-46
OBC (Tourism)-38, OBC (Hotel)- 36
SC (Tourism)-41, SC (Hotel)-28
(iv) Interview notice and addendum are available on the website of the University, etc. other related information
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Professor Rajiv Kumar Singh, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the note sheets prepared for proposal of addendum involved preparation of cut-off marks and final selection list through scrutiny of other candidates, i.e. third parties. Therefore, the same could not be disclosed as per the provisions under Section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act. However, they had provided category-wise cut-off marks for the selection of candidates for the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 15.09.2022, except for point no. (v) of the RTI application wherein proposal of addendum was sought by the appellant. During the course of hearing, the respondent clarified that the information involved procedure followed by the University on the basis of marks selected by multiple candidates. However, the relevant exemption clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act were not cited by the erstwhile CPIO in their reply dated 15.09.2022. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit point no. (v) of the RTI application and provide revised reply by citing exemption clauses under the provisions of RTI Act, to the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There appears to be no infirmity with the reply given with respect to the remaining points in the RTI application. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed off.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Vikash v. Central University of Haryana, Second Appeal No. CIC/CUVRH/A/2022/656927; Date of Decision: 29.12.2023