CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001326/4030
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001326
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mohammad Shadab Sami,
IInd Floor, M-77, Abul Fazal
Enclave,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025
Respondent : Prof. Mini S.thomas,
PIO
Jamia Millia Islamia,
Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar
Marg, New Delhi-110025
RTI application filed on : 16.04.2009
PIO replied : 11.05.2009
First appeal filed on : 12.05.2009
First Appellate Authority order : 13.05.2009
Second Appeal received on : 19.05.2009
The Appellant had sought information through RTI application dated.16.04.2009 (and
subsequently also on 06.05.2009, and 08.05.2009). He sought information regarding his
appointment, qualification for the post of lecturer, copy of Appellant’s application form,
Attendance sheet of the selection committee held on 09.04.2009
– In RTI application 16 April, 2009, he sought for Reasons those were responsible for
delaying in the Appellant’s appointment.
– In RTI application 06 May, 2009,
1. proceeding of the screening committee
2. proceeding of the screening committee held on 09.04.2009
3. Qualification for the post of lecturer.
4. Advertisement No.10/2008-09
5. Attendance sheet of the selection committee held on 09.04.2009
6. minutes of the executive council held on 18.04.2009
7. Copy of Appellant’s application form.
– In RTI application 08 March, 2009,
1. status of his appointment letter,
2. By when appointment will be.
3. Whether the formality of service book as mentioned in appointment letter issued to
candidates is to compel with/ completed only after the issue of appointment letter.
– In RTI application 12 May, 2009, he sought for copy of qualification, post
appointed/upgraded and the copy of application form of the listed people (in
document).
Reply of PIO:
The Appellant was informed that information sought by him could not be communicated since an
enquiry had been directed by the Vice-Chancellor into the selection proceedings/process for the
appointment to the post of Lecture. It was relevant to mention that giving any information at this
juncture would impede the process of investigation.
Grounds for first appeal:
The Appellant had requested in his first appeal for the copy of qualification and post
appointed/upgraded.
Order of First Appellate Authority:
FAA informed the Appellant that the PIO, JMI had already replied to all his RTI applications
and the same had been personally received by the Appellant on 11th May, 2009.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
1. The Appellant has mentioned that enquiry set up is university level enquiry not a police
enquiry.
2. Since Prof. Mushirul Hasan was there in the selection committee, so he can not set up an
enquiry on the committee because it challenges his credibility/authenticity.
Submissions by the PIO dated 3/07/2009:
On 19.06.2009, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Aggarwal (Retd.) submitted his findings (Report) and
the same was adopted by the principal executive body of the University, the Executive Council
vide a Resolution No. EC -2009 (IV) : Reso.15 dated 23.06.2009. The Report, inter alia,
revealed that the entire process of selection to the post of Lecturer (Still Photography) [ the post
on which the Appellant was recommended for selection] was vitiated by interestedness and bias
and that there were glaring irregularities in the process of selection. The operative portion of the
said Report read as under :-
” …..The cumulative effect of the various circumstances noted while discussing the above issue,
clearly show that in all probability it was the Registrar, Prof. Anisur Rehman, whose nephew
came to be recommended for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Photography) was responsible
for unfortunate sequence of events, and recording of incorrect minutes of the Executive Council.
It is said that the men may tell lies, but the circumstances would never”.
It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant is the nephew of the then Registrar (Prof. Anisur
Rehman) who manipulated appointment of his nephew, Sh. Shadab Sami (the Appellant herein).
The Executive Council of the Respondent University has, resultantly, not accepted the
recommendations of the Selection Committee (held on 09.04.2009) for the post of Lecturer
(Photography), and as per the mandate of 25(6) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 the matter
has been referred to the Visitor of the University (Hon’ble President of India) for a final
decision.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mohammad Shadab Sami
Respondent: Prof. Mini S.thomas, PIO
The PIO has stated that she had provided information in time that an enquiry has sent in motion
since there was some discrepancies in the process of selection. The enquiry is over as evidenced
by the submissions of the PIO to the Commission. The PIO is directed to give a copy of the
written submission to the appellant which she is giving before the Commission to the appellant.
The PIO also brought other information sought by the appellant in the other RTI application and
is giving them to the appellant before the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant before the Commission. The Commission is
convinced that considering the peculiar circumstances of the case the information could not be
supplied earlier.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
8 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(Rnj)