CIC/SA/A/2015/000933, CIC/SA/A/2015/000935, CIC/SA/A/2015/000949, CIC/SA/A/2015/001023, CIC/SA/A/2015/001062, CIC/SA/A/2015/001064, CIC/SA/A/2015/001082 and CIC/SA/A/2015/001083. Case: Alok Srivastava Vs CPIO, English & Foreign Language University. Central Information Commission

Case NumberCIC/SA/A/2015/000933, CIC/SA/A/2015/000935, CIC/SA/A/2015/000949, CIC/SA/A/2015/001023, CIC/SA/A/2015/001062, CIC/SA/A/2015/001064, CIC/SA/A/2015/001082 and CIC/SA/A/2015/001083
JudgesM. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
IssueAdvocate Act, 1961 - Section 49(1)(c); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 91; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 124, 126, 128, 129; Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(e), 2(f), 22, 3, 6, 8, 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 8(8)(e)
Judgement DateNovember 24, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 24-Nov-2015
Party Details Alok Srivastava Vs CPIO, English & Foreign Language University
Case No CIC/SA/A/2015/000933, CIC/SA/A/2015/000935, CIC/SA/A/2015/000949, CIC/SA/A/2015/001023, CIC/SA/A/2015/001062, CIC/SA/A/2015/001064, CIC/SA/A/2015/001082 and CIC/SA/A/2015/001083
Judges M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Acts Advocate Act, 1961 - Section 49(1)(c); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 91; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 124, 126, 128, 129; Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(e), 2(f), 22, 3, 6, 8, 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 8(8)(e)

Decision:

M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner

1. Both the parties are present for videoconference at NIC centre, Rangareddy. The appellant had filed the above 8 (eight) appeals against the same Public Authority on the same subject, and hence they are taken up together for hearing today.

FACTS:

CIC/SA/A/2015/000933

2. Appellant by his RTI application dated 20-6-2015 had sought for copy of the relevant record of the EFL University, Hyderabad based on which Registrar, EFL University has, in the letter dated 13.10.2014 came to the conclusion, that the information from the department about the requirement is a condition precedent to issue the offer of appointment in the vacancy caused due to resignation of the incumbent within one year of his date of joining the post and copy of the relevant, rules and regulations. Having received no reply, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non furnishing of information appellant approached the Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000935

3. Appellant by his RTI application dated 10-4-2015 had sought information regarding his representation dated 11.12.2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD which had been sent to the Registrar of English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad. Having received no information, appellant made first appeal. PIO, thereafter, replied on 09.06.2015 wherein he stated that it was personal information of Dr. Manjusha Srivastava and it was third party information. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000949

4. Appellant by his RTI application 10-4-2015 had sought for copy of the relevant note file of the EFL University, wherein the Vice-Chancellor has approved the Counter affidavit filed by Professor P. Madhavan, the Registrar, the English and Foreign Language University before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 4856 of 2012, whether the University rule under clause 1.1.4 General Conditions of Service, which clause is applicable to non-teaching post in EFL University, Hyderabad etc. PIO, thereafter, replied on 09.06.2015 wherein he stated that it was personal information of Dr. Manjusha Srivastava and it was third party information. Being unsatisfied, appellant has filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/001023

5. Appellant by his RTI application dated 2-4-2015 had sought for information regarding the letter of the Registrar, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad dated 13.10.2014 wherein he informed the MHRD that the reserve panel was valid for one year and had to be operated within the available 6 days and in the absence of information from the department about the requirement, it was not practically possible to issue the offer of appointment within 6 days by following the due procedure. PIO, thereafter, replied on 09.06.2015 wherein he stated that it was personal information of Dr. Manjusha Srivastava and it was third party information. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/001062

6. Appellant through his RTI application 29-4-2015 sought to know following information:

a. Whether there is any rule in the university statutes, ordinances rules & regulations prescribing procedure to fill the vacancy of a teaching post arising due to acceptance of resignation by the incumbent within a period of one year.

b. Details of the procedure prescribed in the university statutes, ordinances rules & regulations to fill the vacancy of a teaching Post arising due to acceptance of the resignation etc.

CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(j). Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/001064

7. The appellant by his RTI application dated 9-4-2015 sought information from the respondent authority regarding rules and regulations in which "failing which" was mentioned. CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(j). Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/001082

8. Appellant through his RTI application dated 9-4-2015 sought copy of note file of the EFL University wherein order issued by the VC appointing Sri M. Satyanarayan Goud as Standing Council of English & Foreign Languages University, copy of his appointment office order, month wise details of expenditure incurred by the EFL University towards professional fee paid to Sri M.S. Goud etc. PIO denied information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/001083

9. Appellant through his RTI application 9-4-2015 sought copy of note file of the EFL University wherein order issued by the VC to obtain point-wise legal opinion from Sri M. Satyanarayan Goud, advocate, as standing Council of English & Foreign Languages University, copy of RTI rules under which application referred to him and expenditure incurred in obtaining legal opinion. PIO denied information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.

Decision:

CIC/SA/A/2015/000933

CIC/SA/A/2015/000935

CIC/SA/A/2015/000949

CIC/SA/A/2015/001023

CIC/SA/A/2015/001062

CIC/SA/A/2015/001064

CIC/SA/A/2015/001082

CIC/SA/A/2015/001083

10. Both the parties made their submissions through video conference from Rangareddy. The appellant submitted that he had made complaint against 5 professors of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT