CIC: The PIO should note that while giving a revised reply, a proper exemption needs to be claimed and it should be justified; In case he is not able to claim any exemption with proper justification, complete information should be provided to appellant
1 Sep, 2022Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information related to Advt. No. NIELIT/NIC/2020/1 issued for recruitment to the post of Scientist B and Scientific/Technical Assistant A, for which examination was held on 22/11/2020:
1. Provide copies of the related pages of books/ reference materials used for preparing answer keys of all the questions of the said examination.
2. Name and designation of the authority who set up the question papers of both exams and prepared answer keys. If it has been done by a Committee, then provide name and designation of the Chairman of the said Committee and constituent members.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of CPIO as if the information on point no. 1 was not available with the CPIO, he was supposed to transfer the RTI application to the holder of the information. He also submitted that even though he had never sought same/similar information, however, the FAA in his order had observed that the appellant is seeking same information through various RTI applications. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 12.01.2021. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 08.07.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO on both the points in totally incomplete. On point no. 1, if the information was not available with the CPIO, he was supposed to transfer the RTI application to the holder of the information which was not done.
With regard to point no.2, no exemption was claimed by the CPIO except for stating that the information is confidential in nature.
Since an incomplete reply was given on both the points, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant.in case the holder of the information is from some other office / public authority, assistance may be sought under Sec 5(4) and information obtained be sent to the appellant. The CPIO should note that while giving a revised reply, a proper exemption needs to be claimed and it should be justified and in case he is not able to claim any exemption with proper justification, complete information should be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO, NEILIT, Calicut is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of the written submissions dated 08.07.2022 to the appellant on his email id anchitjindal07@gmail.com.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Anchit Jindal v. NIELIT in File No. CIC/NIELT/A/2021/617562+ CIC/NIELT/A/2021/617566, Date of Decision: 21/07/2022