CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003264/10768
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003264
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Devinder Sheel Jain
F-267, Saraswati Kunj Apartments,
Plot Number 25, I.P. Extension,
New Delhi-110092
Respondent : Ms. Usha Kumari
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director of Education (East)
Directorate of Education
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092
RTI application filed on : 19/07/2010
PIO replied : 16/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 22/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 29/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 22/11/2010
Information Sought:
1) The appellant sought information about the vacancy based promotion of Smt. Sushma Rani
between 01/09/2008-25/03/2010.
2) The appellant also sought whether directorate was bound to promote all the eligible employees
whose name have been included in Eligibility Records.
3) The appellant also sought whether it is possible to deny MACP to any employee on any day after
date of her becoming eligible of MACP.
4) Names and Designation of all the officials who were responsible for implementing government
order dated 25/03/2010 of MACP in case of Smt. Sushma Rani.
5) If the answer to question 1,2 and 3 is in negative then:
a. By which date the MACP order dated 25/03/2010 be implemented.
b. Procedure for compensating for directed financial loss
c. The action taken against the official for not implementing the orderReply of the Public Information Commissioner:
The PIO cited Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 and said that such information is not defined for all the points.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The reply by the concerned PIO is unsatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The order is reproduced below:
“On perusal of records, it was found that correct and complete information was not given to the applicant.
PIO is hereby directed to get the information from the HOS regarding action taken by the HOS with the
issue of circular regarding seniority list for vacancy based promotion and provide to the applicant within a
week’s time from the date of this order.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO replied to FAA’s order by attaching three records i.e. Letter of promotion from Secretariat Branch
Head-Quarters, Letter of denial of promotion from Smt. Sushma Rani and Letter of Principal forwarding the
letters to the concerning authorities. The appellant requests that the CPIO must be directed furnish true and
complete information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Devinder Sheel Jain;
Respondent: Ms. Laxmi Awasthy, ADE on behalf of Ms. Usha Kumari, PIO & DDE(E);
The PIO has provided information which shows that some records were sought to decide whether
Mrs. Sushma Rani Jain to be promoted on 21/09/2010. The Appellant states that he wants information
whether any vacancy based promotion was offered to Mrs. Jain during the period 01/09/2008 to 25/03/2010.
He has stated that he does not want information of any other period.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on whether any vacancy based promotion was
offered to Mrs. Jain during the period 01/09/2008 to 25/03/2010 to the Appellant before
20 January 2011.
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
04 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)