के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/NITSC/A/2024/642302/C SUBHASHIS BARMA .….निकायतकताग/Complainant VERSUS बनाम PIO, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SILCHAR, RTI CELL, CACHAR, SILCHAR, ASSAM-788010 ….प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:

RTI application filed on : 16.05.2024 CPIO replied on : N.A.

First appeal filed on : 23.06.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : N.A.

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.09.2024 Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2024 seeking the following information:

“NO.NITS/Estt/non_Teaching/2023 date 05.01.2024 published in the website for trade test of shortlisted candidates advt. no NITS/ESTT/ADVT/NON TEACHING/2023/01 DATED 07.07.2023 For the Post Of Technician & Senior Technician. my application no.

231040766 & roll no.AM05010412 I want to know:-

1) my marks for trade test for Technician & Senior Technician along with all candidates who have participate trade test in previous mentioned post.”

2. Having not received the reply from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2024.The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of RTI application and First Appeal, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Shri Subhashis Barma present through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Pulak Nath, AR/ PIO present through video conference.

4. On being queried by the Bench regarding status of reply pertaining to RTI application in question, the PIO stated that a reply has been provided to the Complainant on 15.12.2025 along with a list of shortlisted candidates with category and scores.

5. Complainant affirmed the receipt of reply dated 15.12.2025, however, he is aggrieved by the fact that score of written exams, details of panel were not provided to him despite completion of selection process. In response to it, the CPIO apprised the Bench that in trade test candidates were given the work of experiments on the basis of they are declared qualified/disqualified against completion/non-completion of experiments. No specific scores are granted to the candidates to this end. The PIO volunteered to provide a revised reply to the Complainant deposing this statement in a categorical manner.

Decision:

6. Heard the parties.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that this case is a Complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC

864 wherein it was held as under:-

“…Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.

This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statut