Decision upheld that public authorities are not required to provide information requiring inferences or opinions under the RTI Act.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 I, Anand, (Application Number: SLIA 49) had applied for the post of Senior Library and Information Assistant in your prestigious institution. I fulfilled all the eligibility criteria advertised along with the application. But my application was rejected on grounds of not enclosing required relevant post-qualification experience certificate/s as prescribed in advertising, though I enclosed my still- working certificate and salary slip as the proof for my present working to the academic institutions with 09 years experience. I request to have more information in the following areas under the Right to Information Act, 2005 :

1. Reason for Rejection of Application: I have nine years of experience in an academic institution, which I had supported with my still working certificate and salary slip. Please provide me with the exact reasons for declining my application while considering the inclusions.

2. Ineligibility of Private Academic Institutions Experience: Is there a particular criterion that makes the experience in private academic ineligible for this position?

3. If yes in question No. 2, please provide more detailed information on this criterion and attach the gov order

4. Validity of Still Working Certificate: Is there an issue with the still-working certificate / salary slip that I provided.? Also wanted to know if you need any other formality documents? If yes what is the format required.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. Reason for Rejection of application by the committee is "Not met required relevant post qualification experience".

2. No. Please refer to our recruitment notification EST-I/A-02/2024/001 DATED MARCH 13, 2024 for the post of Senior Library and Information Assistant in which it was mentioned that "At least 3 years of post-qualification relevant Library experience in University / Educational Institute(s)"

3. Not applicable.

4. No.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.09.2024 stated as under: -

“I have examined your request, the information provided and your appeal. CPIO has provided the available information. However, I am directing the CPIO to provide a more clarificatory response through email within seven working days.”

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

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Elavazhagan, CPIO and Mr. K Prabhakar, APIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 17.08.2024 and submitted that all point-wise relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. A written submission dated 31.10.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. I am the CPIO of the Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli, and I am well aware of the facts of the appeal and competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. This written submission is filed on behalf of the Respondent in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission regarding the scheduled hearing of the above matter on October 08, 2025, at 11.35 am.

3. The Appellant applied for the post of Senior Library & Information Assistant against the Recruitment Notification REF. NO. EST-I/A-02/2024/001 Dated 13.03.2024 issued by Indian Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli (enclosed as Annexure -I).

4. As per th