CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000144/11596
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000144
Appellant : Dr. Pravin Kulshestha
H.No. RZ-129 A, Makshudabad Colony,
Near 923 Bus Stand, Nangloi Stand,
Najafgarh, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Yadav
PIO & Publication Officer
State Council of Education Research and
Training, Government of NCT of Delhi,
Varun Marg, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-24
RTI application filed on : 27.09.2010
PIO replied on : 29.10.2010
First appeal filed on : 8.11.2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 13.01.2011
Information sought by the Applicant:
1) The details of experts (name, designation, department, institute etc.) called for conducting
interviews along with the criteria for selecting these experts.
2) Also weight age given to qualification, experience etc. of the selected candidates.
3) Provide information regarding the posts, category of posts, total number of applicants, number
of applicants rejected with reason, number of call letters issued, number of candidates rejected
on the date of interview with reasons.
4) Provide the copy of OBC certificates by SCERT of the candidates' selected OBC category for
the post of Senior lecturers.
5) Provide certified copy of experience of Teaching Educational Techniques in an educational
institute and school level experience of the candidate selected for the post of Senior Lecturer;
educational techniques ; pay band and G.P of his/her previous job should also be provided.
6) Provide verified copies of the main and part file (notings and Annexure) of the process of
selection of Senior lecturers in r/o advertisement no. 1/2010.
7) Whether the candidates selected for the post of Sr. Lecturers have experience in their
departments of their selection. Provide verified copies of internal assessment submitted by
them in SCERT for teaching of the concerned department (only for the internal candidates
selected). For external candidates verified copy by head of department.
8) Provide verified copy of the order under which exemption has been granted to join their
services before medical fitness certificate and verification of experience certificate.
Reply of the PIO:
1) Regarding point no. I it is submitted that as per RTI rule 1.7 (02 B) "The appellant should not seek
information through various forms of queries or ask for information in the structured format in which
the information may not be easily available. If the replies' are formulated or information/data are
presented in the specified format it would not be possible to scrutinize the public action from the view
point of determining accountability of the respondent."
However the information as to nine people, designation, department, Institute name was provided.
2) As stated at Pt. No.1 & also it is submitted that the selection committee has mostly selected the
candidates according to their performance in the interview.
3) In this regard it is submitted that "appellant should not ask for information in the structured format
in which the information may not be easily available. If the replies are formulated or information/data
are presented in the specified format, it would not be possible to scrutinize the public action from the
view point of determining accountability of the respondent" the information is not easily available in
the structured format as asked by the applicant.
4) Verified copies of OBC Certificate of the selected candidates are enclosed. The applicant nay be
requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 16/- Rs.2/- per copies.
5) Photocopies of 'experience certificate in r/o selected candidate of ET are enclosed. The applicant
may be requested to deposit a sum of Rs.24/- Rs.2/- per copies.
6) Since the noting portion is quite lengthy the applicant is requested to come personally to go through
the selection procedure nothings at his convenience.
7) Question does not fall under RTI Act as per rule 1.6(7-A)
8) Term and condition mentioned in the Offer of Appointment and Order of Appointment Verified
copy of orders is enclosed. The applicant may be requested to deposit a sum of Rs.6/- @ Rs.2/- per
copies.
Grounds of First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
Order of the FAA:
Not enclosed
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information has been provided in bits and pieces and after due date. Providing of the information as
per the first appeal has not been done in totality. The reply has been simply stated without details,
camouflaged and deliberately not provided. And are quoting so called non existent rule 1.7 (02B) of
the RTI Act
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Dr. Pravin Kulshesthe;
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, PIO & Publication Officer;
The PIO has given information but the Appellant is stating that information has not been
provided on the following queries:
1- Query-2: Weightage given to various criteria.
2- Query-6: The PIO is directed to send entire file to the Appellant with annexures and
notings.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 05 April 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
22 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ)