CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000121/4353
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000121
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Complainant : Mr. D.P. Rajbhar,
V.P.O.-Kasara (Sohanaria),
District- Mau,
Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent : Ms. Anupama Bhatnagar
Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of H.R.D.
Department of Higher Education,
Government of India, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 25/10/2008
PIO replied : No Reply
First Appeal filed on : Not Filed
Complaint filed on : 10/02/2009
Information sought:
Appellant had sought information from the Ministry of Human Resource & Development in
reference to their two letters bearing letter no. F-33-3/62-U.5 dated 28th September 1962 and
letter no. D. 7922/54-A3 dated 23rd November 1954/+F33-11/55+A.1. Appellant had alleged that
in these letters the Ministry of HRD had made a distinct reservation of 15% to SC and 5% to
STs. With regard to these two letters Appellant had sought information on the following matters:
1. The Bill or Act by which the abovementioned facility was introduced by the Ministry of
HRD and copy of this bill and purpose to introduce the same should be enclosed.
2. Whether in the above mentioned reservation for SC-15% and STs- 5%, the reservation
for De-notified Tribe was also included? If yes then in which category?
3. Whether any percentage of De-notified Tribe was also included in SC or ST? If yes then
in which category and what is the correct percentage of D.T.?
4. Whether GOI discriminate in Government Employee (for service purpose) and
Educational Institution for the candidate of De-Notified Tribe. If yes, then why?
5. Whether Ministry of HRD (Education Ministry) had issued any direction/Govt. Order for
admission to those educational institutions which were running by adopting the
reservation pattern of Central Government in respect of De-Notified Tribe after getting
freedom of India. If yes then enclose all letters while replying these information’s.
Reply of PIO:
PIO didn’t reply to the queries of the Complainant.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Complainant did not file the First Appeal.
Grounds for Complaint:
Complainant had stated that the PIO had not replied to his queries and therefore he had
approached the Commission to issue directions on the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. D.P. Rajbhar
Respondent: Ms. Anupama Bhatnagar, PIO
The PIO had originally not given the information since the IPO was made out in the name of
Account Officer, Ministry of HRD which was an error since this is specified in the rules.
Subsequently the PIO has given the information and sent part of the application to the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment who has also sent the information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Complain is allowed.
The information has been provided to the Appellant.
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
3 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(D.A.)