Information regarding appointment - CIC: Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the CIC to plead his case/contest PIO’s submission; CIC is not in a position to ascertain if the Appellant has received reply from the UPSC; No relief
The Appellant sought cut off marks for OBC, UR, SC, ST/Select list of all advertisements for chargeman, scientific assistant, junior engineer (QA) in DGQA Department and copy of advertisement for the scientific officer Grade – II & Junior Scientific Officer from year 1999-2009 in DGQA Department.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Kamlesh Saini, AD & CPIO, O/o DGQA, New Delhi, R.B. Ninawe, AE (QA), Ichapore, S.K. Thakur, SSO-1, Dehradun, J.S. Thakur, AO and D.K. Nayak, O/o SQAE(Met), Muradnagar present in person.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply was provided in response to para 1 of the RTI Application. He further submitted with regard to para 2 of the RTI Application that advertisement for the posts of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II is done by UPSC. He furthermore submitted that posts of Junior Scientific Officers are not filled up by direct recruitment. He furthermore also submitted that para 2 of the RTI Application was transferred to UPSC under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act on 8.1.2018.
Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case/contest CPIO’s submission. Commission is not in a position to ascertain if the Appellant has received reply from the UPSC. In view of the foregoing and on the basis of records, CPIO’s submission is upheld and no relief is ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Citation: Pankaj Kumar v. CPIO, Directorate General of Quality Assurance in File No : CIC/DGOQA/A/2018/627127, Date of Decision: 23/01/2020