O R D E R

Second Appeal No. CIC/IITMD/A/2023/646383

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 Ref.: My application number R421JA2640, submitted for the post of Junior Assistant against your advertisement number IITM/R/4/2021 dated 21.07.2021 (copy enclosed).

(i) Provide a copy of all documents regarding scrutiny of my application.

(ii) Provide the details of all processes involved in the scrutiny of my application.

(iii) Provide comments, recommendations, decisions, notes, reports, etc made regarding my application.

(iv) Provide details of facilities, staff, officials, etc involved in the scrutiny of my application.

(v) Provide procedures and actions taken regarding my application date wise along with supporting documents.

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Information could not be furnished and exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005.”

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

Second Appeal No. CIC/IITMD/A/2023/644731

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Give reasons along with supporting documents for not shortlisting my application with the application number R421JA2640 against your advertisement number IITM/R/4/2021 dated 21.07.2021 for the Computer Based MCQ test (Level 1) for the post of Junior Assistant.

(ii) Give the specific qualifications that my application (Application No:

R421JA2640) did not meet against your advertisement number IITM/R/4/2021 dated 21.07.2021 for the post of Junior Assistant along with supporting documents.

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Already received same query through Registration No.00181. Reply will be given to 00181. Hence returning this application as duplicate.”

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2023 stated as under:

“Your application for the post of Junior Assistant was not shortlisted as you have not met the requisite qualification.”

2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

3. Both parties remained absent despite having received hearing notices.

4. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that appropriate replies have been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act and as per records available under their custody. Further, the Commission takes note of the absence of the respondent during the hearing despite having received the hearing notice. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to send a proper written explanation to the Commission for not attending the hearing. The said written explanation shall reach the bench within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) ( )

आनदं ी राम(cid:10)लगं म Information Commissioner ( )

सचू ना आय(cid:15)ु

/Date: 23.10.2024 (cid:21)दनांक Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd)

कन(cid:15)ल एस एस िछकारा, ((cid:23)रटायड)(cid:15)

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras, CPIO, RTI Branch, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600036

2. Santhosh Krishna K.

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)