CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001575/8626
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001575
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Meenakshi Tanwar
W/o Mr. Anuj Tanwar
WZ- 87/2,1st floor ,Tatar Pur
Near Tagore Garden Metro Station
New DeIhi-110027
Respondent : Mr. M. B. Vijh
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
FC 18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 13/04/2010 PIO replied : 12/05/2010 First appeal filed on : 13/05/2010 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 04/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 10/06/2010 Information Sought: - Kindly provide reason for not allotting the 2nd seat which is reserved under OBC Quota to the
Applicant for the job of TGT Natural science.
– Furnish the answer sheet for inspection to the Applicant.
PIO Reply:
– Result of candidates of roll no 03012929 is pending with OBC Category.
– Inspection of evaluated answer sheet not allowed as the Board has stayed the order from Delhi
High Court against the direction of CIC.
Ground for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by CPIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Information provided by CPIO is sufficient.
Ground for Second Appeal:
Not satisfied with the decision of FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Ms. Meenakshi Tanwar;
Respondent : Mr. M. B. Vijh, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The appellant had sought a copy of her answer sheet and the reasons for her not being selected for
the post for which she appeared. The board has obtained a stay form High Court against showing the
answer sheets and hence presently the Commission is unable to pass any order in this matter. On Ms.
Tulika Singh has been ranked higher than the appellant according to the PIO but the selection process has
not been finalized though it is nearly four months since the result was declared. The appellant has shown
the Commission that result notice 89 issued by the board states that “Candidates are directed to contact
the board personally alongwith all the testimonials within 10 days of declaration of results.” The PIO
claims that as yet the selection of Ms. Tulika Singh has not been completed but has not given reason for
this. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the reasons on the record why this selection is being
delayed. He will provide file notings in this matter also to the appellant. In case there are no reasons on
the record this should be stated.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as described above to the appellant
before 05 August 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ARG)