ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 05.03.2021 seeking information on the following four points:

1) “SIKKIM UNIVERSITY DWRA LDC AND LAB ATTENDENT ME SHAMIL SHABHI ABHAYARTIYO KA WRITEN EXAMINATION KA MARKS UPLABDH KARAYEE JAY SHATH HI UNIVERSITY KE WEBSITE PAR UPLOAD KIYA JAY.

2) LDC AND LAB ATTENDANT KA SELECTED CANDIDATE KA LIST UPLABDH KARAYEE JAY.

3) LDC AND LAB ATTENDANT KA CATOGERY UR, OBC, SC, ST WISE CUT OFF MARKS UPLABDH KARAYEE JAY.

4) PRARTHI KE DWRA PURV ME BHI RTI REGISTERATION NO SIKUV/R/E/21/00002 DATE 11.01.2021 DWARA RESULT WEBSITE PAR UPLABCH KARANE KE SAMBANDH ME ANURODH KIYA GAYA THA UNIVERSITY DWARA KIS PARISTHITI ME WEBSITE PAR UPLABDH NAHI KARAYA GAYA.”

Shri Gracce D. Chankapa, CPIO & Deputy Registrar, Sikkim University, Gangtok, Sikkim vide letter dated 21.04.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.04.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.04.2021, informed as under:

“With reference to your online RTI appeal dated 05.04.2021, I am to inform you that the RTI questions is not within the preview of RTI Act. The RTI does not give the right to the applicant to instruct the organization to take action. The response to the RTI is enclosed. However, if the candidates so desires, the information can be provided under the RTI Act.”

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.

The Respondent submitted that information with respect to the instant RTI Application could not be provided to the Appellant due to language barrier as due to genuine oversight they mistook the “uplabdh” for “upload”. Therefore, due to above mistake the same could not be provided and further extended their apologies for the same.

The Commission queried the Respondent whether the desired information can now be furnished to the Appellant, to which the Respondent replied in affirmative.

The Commission further remarked that marks of the other candidates shall not be shared if the same is not uploaded on the website, and the Respondent concurred with the above remark.

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that due to genuine oversight of the Respondent while interpreting the contents of the instant RTI Application, the desired information was not furnished to the Appellant. However, in the light of the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to furnish the desired information to the Appellant strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

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

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.