CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001432/4177
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001432
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Neeraj Bansal,
552-A, Sector-3,
R. K. Puram,
New Delhi-110022
Respondent : Mr. U.S. Kalra
PIO/Dy. Medical Superintendent(A),
O/o Medical Superintendent
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-64
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2008
PIO replied : 05/09/2008
First appeal filed on : 14/10/2008
First Appellate Authority order : No hearing held.
Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2009
Information Sought regarding recruitment terms and rules for engagement of Junior Resident
Doctors (Dental) in the hospitals of Govt. of NCR Delhi.
Sl. Information Sought: PIO’s Reply:
1. What are the terms and conditions? Copy of such DDU Hospital is appointing Junior
rules/orders. Residents (Dental) Doctors on
contract basis. Acompy of the
circular containing
conditions/eligibility for J.r. Dental
is enclosed.
2. Are such rules modified from time to time? For regular appointment of Dental
doctors the R.Rs may be obtained
from the Dental Council of India.
3. Do such modifications fall within the jurisdiction of the
Medical Superintendent of the concerned hospital?
4. Which is the competent authority to make such
modifications?
5. Who lays down the abovementioned rules?
6. What were the criteria for the notification published for
the recruitment of JR(Dental) in the year 2007-08 in
DDU Hospital Hari Nagar, New Delhi? Supply copy of
the notification.
7. Can the concerned MS extend the payment period
beyond 6 months as given in the advertisement? If yes,
on what grounds?
8. In case candidates are available as per waiting list
prepared by the MS, is it mandatory to engage next
candidate on the waiting list after expiry of six months
term of the previous JR? Supply copy of list of selected
and waited list candidates.
9. How many times an extension beyond the initial 6
month period can be given without the approval of
competent authority?
10. Which is the competent authority to give such an
approval?
11. Name and address of the JR (Dental) selected and
engaged against the advertisement appearing in 2007-
2008 till 12/08/2008.
12. Name of the JR(Dental) engaged by extending the
initial period of 6 months.
13. Names of JR (Dental) engaged out of the waiting list?
14. Name of JR dental pending to be engaged from the
waiting list?
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information provided by the PIO is incomplete and irrelevant.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
No hearing held.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No hearing held on first appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The Following were present:
Appellant:Absent
Respondent: Mr. U.S. Kalra, PIO
The PIO admits that incomplete information was given and most of the information was not
given. He has shown evidence that after the FAA’s order Dr. Praveena Goyal, Dy. Medical
Superintendent gave the complete information on 10/02/2009. The PIO claims that the gave
completely unsatisfactory and incomplete information because “I sought the assistance of Dr.
Praveena Goyal Dy. Medical Superintendent and this unsatisfactory and incomplete information
was given to me by her which I forwarded to the Appellant. Hence I am not responsible for this.”
In view of the statement of the PIO the deemed PIO as per Section 5(5) is Dr. Praveena Goyal
Dy. Medical Superintendent who is guilty of not furnishing complete information.
Decision
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
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 Dr. Praveena Goyal
Dy. Medical Superintendent is guilty of not furnishing complete 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 deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions
of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons
to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her for the delay in
providing information at Rs.250 per day for each day of delay. The complete information should
have been provided by 12/09/2008, instead of which it was provided on 10/02/2009.
She will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 31 August 2009 at
2.30pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
her as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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 cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)