RANDOMLY SELECTED RECENT ORDERS PASSED BY CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION FOUND DEFICIENT

EXAMPLE: (1)

BHAGAT SINGH v. PIO, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HARYANA

(CASE NO. CIC/SA/A/2015/0001063)

DATE OF HEARING:31/08/2015          DATE OF DECISION: 11/09/2015

“1. Both the parties are present in the V.C.

FACTS:

2.Appellant through his RTI application sought information regarding education qualification, eligibility screening committee report of candidates for the post of associate professor. He wanted to know how many candidates had applied with their names and educational qualification / experience and API score, who were the members of the screening committee for verifying the API and other eligibility conditions for the post and when was the screening done etc. Having received no information, appellant filed first appeal. PIO, thereafter, replied on 05-0502015 providing para  wise  reply. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached the Commission.

Proceedings Before the Commission:

3.Appellant   wanted   copy   of   educational   qualification   and   experience   of   candidates applied for the post of Associate Professor in the department of Economics and Management,as per advertisement of 3/201 . He also wanted name of members of screening committeewho verified the API, and number of candidates found eligible for the post.

4.Having heard the submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide detail of educational qualification and experience of the eligible candidates, without disclosing the names of the screening committee members, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.”

                                                                                     DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORDER

1.What were the grounds on which the appellant was not satisfied with the para wise reply furnished to him by the public authority as per the appeal filed by the appellant ?

2.Why did the Second Appellate Authority (CIC) decide that the names of the members of the screening committee should not be furnished to the appellant has not been indicated.

3.The appellant wanted to know experience of candidates who had applied for the post. Why did the Second Appellate Authority decide to furnish these details only in respect of the candidates declared eligible has not been mentioned in the order.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

EXAMPLE: (2) 

MAYANK KUMAR TIWARI v. PIO, NEHRU GRAM BHARTI UNIVERSITY

(CASE NO. CIC/SA/A/2015/001112)

DATE OF HEARING: 31/08/2015             DATE OF DECISION: 11/09/2015

 

“1. Both the parties are present in the V.C.

FACTS:

2.Appellant through his RTI application sought information regarding recognition of LLB course offered by Nehru Gram Bharti University. Having received no information, appellant filed   first   appeal.   Claiming   non ­furnishing   of   information,   appellant   approached   the Commission

Decision:

3.Both the parties made their submissions. The Commission  directs  the respondent authority of university to provide comprehensive reply to the appellant’s RTI application  and clarify the position about authorization, recognition and approval, if they have been running the courses of LLB etc. which were mentioned in the letters written by the UGC on 02.01.2015 and 29.10.2014, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

  DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORDER

1.The order is completely silent about why the public authority failed to furnish the information requested by the appellant; if this was a case of willful violation of the RTI Act 2005 or not ; and why in either case it was not considered necessary to impose a penalty on the PIO for failure to furnish the information.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

EXAMPLE:(3)

RANJIT ROY Vs. DEPT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOI

(CASE NO. CIC/RM/C/2014/000054SA)

DATE OF HEARING: 09/09/2015                     DATE OF DECISION: 11/09/2015

“Parties present: The complainant is present.  The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Kundan Nath, Mr.Ram Shankar, Asst Professor along with third party Smt. Satpal Kaur and Manoj Kumar, Supdt

FACTS:

2.Complainant by his RTI application had sought copy of the file forwarded to MHRD by CBSE of Mr M I Hussain who had been awarded national award in 2009. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, complainant approached the Commission in second appeal.

DECISION:

3.Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent officers submitted that the complainant had moved a number of applications on this issue through various authoritieslike  PMO , etc. and they have presented a copy of a table containing the details  of his applications to PMO, to the Commission during hearing. The complainant  is prejudiced against Dr. D. R. Saini as he had terminated the services of the complainant on the charge of sexual harassment. Since then, he had been moving various RTI applications seeking information which relates to third party. When the Commission asked the complainant the public interest involved, in seeking this information, he could not convince the Commission.

 4.The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, considers that there is no public interest involved in seeking the information and the complainant is motivated by personal vengeance against Dr. D. R. Saini. Hence the Commission rejects the appeal. ”   

___________________________________________________________________________________________        

                                                                                                    (DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORDER)

The appellant has been denied the information  on the ground that there was no public interest involved. However, the grounds on the basis of which the Second Appellate Authority arrived at this conclusion has not been revealed. The denial of information without proper justification is a violation of the right to information conferred on a citizen under the RTI Act 2005. There is not even any indication whether the third part was consulted  at all by the PIO and whether he had objected to revealing the information to the appellant.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

   EXAMPLE: (4) 

SATINDER JIT SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES< GOI.

(CASE NO. CIC/RM/C/2013/000539SA)

DATE OF HEARING:09/09/2015      DATE OF DECISION: 11/09/2015

“Parties present: The appellant is represented by Mr. Satinder Jit Singh. The Public Authority is represented by Dr.A.K.Tripathi, PIO.  

 FACTS:

2.Complainant by his RTI application had sought copy of the promotion order of Mrs  Namita Kalra from Lecturer Sr. Scale / Reader to the post of Professor, copy of the recruitment rules / qualification for appointment as Professor. Claiming non-furnishing of information, complainant approached the Commission

DECISION: 

3.Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent officer handed over the information to the complainant during hearing.   As the complainant is submitting that the information   furnished   is   incomplete   and   delayed   beyond   the   prescribed   period,   the Commission directs the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for not furnishing the information within the prescribed period.   His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.  The Commission also      directs  the PIO to furnish complete information to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4.The Commission orders accordingly.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                         (DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORDER)

1.Both the terms “appellant” and “complainant” have been casually used in the order which creates a doubt as to whether the matter has been heard by the Commission under section 18 or section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.

2.If the matter has been heard as a complaint under section 18 of the Act, it is not clear how a show cause notice for imposing a penalty on the PIO can be issued by the Commission as the power to impose a penalty can be exercised under section 19 which relates to appeal.

3.The PIO has been directed to furnish “complete” information to the complainant without indicating in which aspect the information already furnished has been found to be deficient.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Chat with Us

(05:00 pm - 06:00pm)