के(cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:6981),मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/HGEDU/A/2024/634142 Shivek Sohal … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO UT Chandigarh- Higher Education …(cid:7079)ितवादीगण/Respondent Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 26.02.2024 FA : 09.04.2024 SA :. 08.08.2024 CPIO : 28.03.2024 &

FAO : 08.05.2024 Hearing : 18.02.2026

26.06.2024 Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 CORAM Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2024, before the CPIO, UT Chandigarh- Higher Education, seeking information as under:

“Question 1 Under which rule does colleges in Chandigarh appoint their various Head of the Departments?

Question 2 What are the criterias adopted to appoint the Head of the departments in the colleges in Chandigarh?

Question 3 What is the tenure of the appointed Head of the departments in colleges in Chandigarh and under which rule is the tenure decided?”

2. The CPIO & Suptd. College-I, Directorate of Higher Education, UT Chandigarh, replied to the RTI Application on 28.03.2024, as under:

“It is intimated that the points raised by you vide above referred RTI Application is in the nature of questionnaires such as reasons and intentions and no 'information' within the ambit of the definition of the information. Therefore, it is out of the purview of the RTI Act in terms of Section 2(f) & (J).”

3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on

09.04.2024, before the FAA, UT Chandigarh- Higher Education, stating as under:

“Reply of the CPIO is arbitrary in nature and with lackadaisical approach have avoided to answer as the application could have been forwarded to colleges/aided colleges seeking the above mentioned information, also the rti application & reply is enclosed.

CPIO failed to cogently arrive at a conclusion that whenever there is an appointment of any person in this case HODs of various departments of colleges/aided colleges in UT Chandigarh by exercising a power, must have been under some rule, following a procedure and for a specific tenure.

Any Recruitment/Appointment is a public activity, which involves participation and interest of number of aspirants. The information demanded is not seeking as to why a decision was taken, it is to seek under which rule it was exercised. The decision of CPIO is malafide and not supported by reasoning. The information demanded mentioned above is absolutely as per the provisions of RTI Act and is not at all in the nature of questionnaires.”

4. The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2024, held as under:

“After hearing both the parties, CPIO-cum-Superintendent(College-1, Branch), 0/0 Director Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration is hereby directed to supply information/documents lying with the office record (if available) free of cost as per his RTI application submitted on 26.02.2024 to the appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.”

5. In compliance with the FAA’s order, the CPIO replied to the Appellant on

26.06.2024, as under:

“Since the information as sought for by you vide your RTI Applications referred to above, is not available in material form, it is therefore, requested to inspect the relevant files on any working day (during office hours) if so desire, with prior intimation in this regard and get the requisite information /documents free of cost in compliance of orders of the State Liaison Officer (NSS)-cum-First Appellate Authority Or Director Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration.”

6. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order and the reply of the CPIO pursuant to the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated

08.08.2024.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

7. The Appellant was represented by Hanima Grewal during the hearing through video conference. On behalf of the Resp