CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000858/3584
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000858
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Gajraj Singh
S/o Shri Dharmaraj Singh
Vill.+PO Katirpur
Dist. Gurgaon
PIN 122017
Respondent : Dr. S.B.Sharma
Public Information Officer
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Govt. of NCT Delhi,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-10092.
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2008 PIO replied : 16/01/2009 First appeal filed on : 27/12/2008 First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned Second Appeal received on : 22/04/2009
The Appellant in his RTI has sought information regarding exam, which was conducted by
the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and has asked about the selection criteria of
those candidates who qualified basic exam and appeared in main exam while it was nowhere
mentioned in the Employment news. He has also sought for the cut off list of short-listed
candidates.
S.No Information Sought PIO’s reply
1. Should the exam of candidates of For general category and reserved
generally category be evaluated who had category, minimum pass marks is 40%
secured more than 40% marks in and 30% respectively in Qualifying
qualifying exam? exam. Results have been announced by
10 fold of the available seat keeping
marks limit in view.
2. Only the shortlisted candidates are shown Same a s above.
eligible for main exam on the base of
result of qualifying exam issued by the
DSSSG. On which base has they been
shortlisted while it was nowhere
mentioned in circular issued by the Board
in English Employment on 12-18 April
2008
3. How many marks I had secured as my Candidate has got 116 marks in exam.
name is not in the list of short-listed
candidates?
4. My main exam should be revaluated if I According to the answer of 1 and 2
had got more than 40% as I had applied
in general category.
5. What is the cut off of the candidates Details of final candidates short-listed
applied in general category and reserved in general category and reserved
category? category.
a) UR – 121
b) SC – 109
c) OBC – 110
The First Appellant Authority’s Order:
Not Mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr.Gajraj Singh
Respondent: Dr.S.B.Sharma, PIO
The information had been provided to the appellant. However the information provided late
and it appears to be no cause for this. The PIO has given an explanation that he received the
application on 14/11/2008 and on the same day he sought the assistance of Mrs. Indra Behl,
Dy.Secretary(CC-I) under Section 5(4) to provide the information. He received the
information form deemed PIO Mrs. Indra Behl on 14/1/2009 and sent it to the appellant on
16/01/2009. From this it appears that the person responsible for this delay is deemed PIO
Mrs. Indra Behl.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information had been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO, Mrs Indra Behl is
guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section
7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the
PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) . A showcause notice is being
issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to showcause why
penalty should not be levied on her.
She will give her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
her as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 June, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5th June, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(GJ)