SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2601

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Raja Saraf – Appellant
Versus
National Institute of Technology – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Omkar Srivastava

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Recruitment Notice for the Non-Teaching Posts (Direct Recruitment) Advt. No./NITRR/R-1/2023/161 dated 13/07/2023 Please provide list of top 10 Candidates along with their marks obtained for following posts

1) Technical Assistant (CIVIL) against UR -1

2) Junior Engineer (CIVIL) against UR -1 Based on the MCQ test held on 03-11-2023.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

The required information is third party information. So, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.02.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent advocate Omkar Srivastava attended the hearing through video confere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top