Central Information Commission Judgements

Dr. Babasahed Datta Patil vs Ccras, New Delhi on 20 January, 2010

Central Information Commission
Dr. Babasahed Datta Patil vs Ccras, New Delhi on 20 January, 2010
              Central Information Commission
                                                                     CIC/AD/C/2010/000011
                                                                     Dated 20th January, 2010

Name of the Complainant                      :    DR. BABASAHED DATTA PATIL


Name of the Public Authority                 :    CCRAS, NEW DELHI

Background

1. The Applicant filed his RTI application on 01.08.09 with the PIO, CCRAS, New Delhi
seeking information regarding the recruitment of Research Officer Ayurveda by CCRAS
against 5 points including list of eligible candidates, list of candidates qualified, actual
marks secured by each candidate, selection criteria and the total marks secured by all
the candidates. The PIO replied on 09.09.09 providing point wise information. Not
satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 11.09.09. The First
Appellate Authority replied on 08.10.09 providing further information and enclosing
the list as sought by the Complainant. Still on not satisfied with the reply, the
Applicant filed a Complaint on 08.11.09 before the Commission stating that the marks
secured by each candidate, selected for interview has not been provided to him and
also added that he has not received the remaining amount of Rs.300/- that he had
sent to the Public Authority.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the
hearing for 20th January, 2010.

3. Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Ganguli, Admn. Officer-cum-PIO represented the Public Authority.

4. Efforts were made to contact the Complainant over his mobile but the Complainant’s
mobile remained switched off.

Decision

5. The Respondent PIO submitted that information against points 1,2, 4 & 5 has been
provided to the Complainant. With regard to point 3 actual marks secured by each
candidate was also provided by the Appellate Authority. The Respondent also stated
that the Appellate Authority on 08.10.09 had provided the detailed break up of marks
secured by all candidates to the Complainant. Hence, the Commission holds that
complete information has been provided and with regard to the remaining amount of
fees with the public authority, directs the PIO to deduct fees for photocopying at
Rs.2/- per page and return the remaining amount to the Complainant by 20th
February, 2010.

(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:

1. Dr. Babasaheb Datta Patil
Vanashree Doctor’s Colony
Near Lion’s Blood Bank
Gadhinglaj
Dist. Kolhapur
Maharashtra – 416 502.

2. The PIO
Central Council for Research in Ayurveda
JLNBCEHA Bhawan
No.61-65, Institutional Area
Janakpuri
New Delhi.

3. The Appellate Authority
Central Council for Research in Ayurveda
JLNBCEHA Bhawan
No.61-65, Institutional Area
Janakpuri
New Delhi.

4. Officer in charge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC