CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001538/4369
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001538
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Mala Shukla
A-170, Pocket 4, Mayur Vihar,
Phase 1, Delhi-110091.
Respondent : Mr. Ravinder Kumar
Dy. Law Officer & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Establishment Department
Town Hall, Delhi-110006.
RTI application filed on : 21/01/2009
PIO replied : 21/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 05/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 05/05/2009
Second Appeal received on : 19/06/2009
Sl. Information sought PIO's reply
1. With regard to ad hoc appointed Since no Specialist in MCD has been
Specialist in the MCD. How is their appointed on ad hoc basis hence question of
Seniority Fixed? fixing Seniority does not arise.
2. What criteria are followed regarding Need no reply in view of reply to Q. No. 01.
fixing of their seniority?
3. How is their seniority fixed with (i) Seniority of regular UPSC appointed
regard to Regular UPSC appointed specialist are fixed as per the merit fixed by
specialists? How are ad hoc specialist the UPSC.
ratified? (ii) No ad hoc Specialist doctors are ratified
till date.
4. Is Ratification is for continuation of Need no reply in view of reply (ii) of Q. No.3.
service.
5. Does Ratification involve fixing of Need no reply in view of reply to Q. No. 4.
seniority in relation to Regular UPSC
specialist?
Grounds for First Appeal:
The SPIO, did not give any reply to any one of the queries of the Appellant as per the guidelines
under RTI Act. Inspection of certain documents and their photocopies was allowed to the
Appellant in last week of March’09. The records however reveal that Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment in the matter of Anuradaha Bodi & Ors Vs MCD has been followed selectively in the
case of medical officers and not in case of specialists, where it has been flouted to the contrary.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
“The Appellant has inspected the desired record and been provided the photocopies of the
requisite documents. But she also desired the information in writing with regards to point Nos. 1
to 5. Hence, PIO is directed to provide the information as available on record to the Appellant
within 15 working days positively. The PIO is required to supply such material to the citizen
who seeks it. The Act, however, does not require the PIO to deduce some conclusion from the
‘material’ and supply the ‘conclusion’ so deduced to the Appellant. The PIO is required to
supply the ‘material’ in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to do research
on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and them supply it to him.”
Grounds for Second Appeal
Incorrect, incomplete, misleading information has been provided by the SPIO, despite FAA’s
directive, that no ad-hoc specialist has ever been appointed in MCD hence question of inter-se
seniority does not arise.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Mala Shukla
Respondent: Mr. Ravinder Kumar, PIO
The PIO will give the seniority list for the entire specialist cadre for the year 2009. If this is not
available this should be stated. The PIO will also inform the Appellant whether the following
specialist Doctors were recruited through UPSC.
1- Dr. Shusham Lata 2- Dr. Asha Agarwal Decision: The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information stated above to the Appellant before 20 August 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 cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(AK)