CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002695/5971
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002695
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. V.P. Yadav,
House No. 252, Hastsal Village,
New Delhi - 110059.
Respondent : Ms. Sonika Singh
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Services Department, Coordination Branch,
Delhi Secretariat, 7th Level, B-Wing,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110002.
RTI application filed on : 08-07-2009 PIO replied : 11-08-2009 First appeal filed on : 10-09-2009 First Appellate Authority order : 16-10-2009 Second Appeal received on : 23-10-2009 Hearing Held on : 17-12-2009 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought following information from PIO – Services Department, Govt.
of NCT regarding the noting portion of the file wherein the then Hon’ble L/G. Delhi being the
competent authority might have approved the adhoc promotion to DANICS cadre from Gr-I in
the month of Oct.-Nov. 1995.
Please arrange to supply the copy of the noting portion of the file wherein the then
Hon’ble L/G. Delhi being the competent authority might have approved the adhoc
promotion to DANICS cadre from Gr-I in the month of Oct.-Nov. 1995 which includes my
name as V.P Yadav, Seniority No. 877, Gr-I DASS. This approval by the Hon’ble L.G.
Delhi resulted into the issuance of promotion order dated 14-02-1996 of Gr.-I DASS to
adhoc DANICS cadre.
The PIO’s reply:
“Your application you application (relating to sealed cover) was forwarded to this
department under the RTI Act, 2005. the same had been assigned I.D. No. 837/RTI/Service dated
13-07-2009. In this regard, it is informed that the requisition made by you is ambiguous and
clarificatory in nature, hence the same is not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Incomplete and incorrect information had been provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“The appellant has sought certain information vide his RTI applications dated 08-07-
2009, to which the PIO replied that the concerned file/s was not readily available. The concerned
file/s contains the case in the context of which the appellant had submitted the RTI applications.
Therefore, in the absence of the file/s reply of the PIO to the appellant is not justified. It is,
therefore, ordered that the concerned file/s be traced out and the requisite information be
provided to the appellant”.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information had been provided to the appellant by the PIO and not
satisfied with the FAA reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. V.P. Yadav;
Respondent: Ms. Sonika Singh, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The Appellant wanted to know whether his name was considere4d and kept in seal cover
at the time of promoting his junior. It appears that there was some confusion about understanding
his query since he had also put additional information and comments in his query. The PIO has
understood the query clearly and states that she will now be able to provide the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information before 30 December 2009.
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
17 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (BK)