CIC noted with concern the careless attitude of the JRNRV University while presenting the matter before it - The Section Officer was completely unaware of the facts of the case - CIC cautioned the respondent for not exercising due care in representing
1. Shri Farzand Masih, the complainant, sought details of entrance test held in 2003. 2004 & 2005 for BHMS course for ‘Off Campus Centre’ learning centre in the premises of Solan Homeopathic Medical College, Hospital etc.
2. The Commission in File no. CIC/WB/A/2010/000936/AD had heard and decided the matter on 27.12.2010 directing the CPIO to provide complete information on the RTI application. Not having received any reply from the CPIO, the complainant made instant complaint before the Commission stating that the Commission’s order dated 27.12.2010 had not been complied with by the CPIO.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant was not present in spite of the notice of hearing having been sent to him.
4. The Section Officer who appeared on behalf of the respondent authority was not well conversant with the facts of the instant matter as he did not even know the correct date of the RTI application. He mentioned the date of RTI application as 05.06.2009 instead of 25.09.2009. However, he informed the Commission that the exams related records were disposed of after the period of one year and as per the record retention schedule all the records related to the entrance held in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 at Solan Homeopathic Medical College had been destroyed. The complainant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
5. A perusal of records before it the Commission observes that in compliance with the Commission’s order dated 27.12.2010 the respondent had informed the Commission vide letter dated 29.08.2011 with a copy to the complainant that as per the office order dated 23.05.2003 all the records related to the entrance held in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 at Solan Homeopathic Medical College had been destroyed and hence they were unable to provide the information sought to the complainant. The Commission also notes with concern the careless attitude of the respondent while presenting the matter before the Commission. Shri Nazmuddin, Section Officer who appeared on behalf of the respondent authority was not prepared and was completely unaware of the facts of the case. The respondent authority is cautioned for not exercising due care in representing. The respondent authority is advised to depute the CPIO or the officer who is well conversant with the case, in future. The complaint is closed.
Citation: Shri Farzand Masih v. JRNRV University, Udaipur in Complaint No. CIC/DS/C/2011/002342/MP, Date of Decision : September 22, 2017