CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001345/SG/14716
Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001345/SG
Appellant : Mr. Satish Raghvan,
B2C-78B, Janakpuri
New Delhi-110058
Respondent : Dr. Manoj Kumar
PIO & Sr. CMO
RTI Cell,
Safdurjung Hospital & VMMC,
New Delhi-110029
RTI application filed on : 25/10/2010
PIO replied : 13/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : 06/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 07/02/2011
Second Appeal filed on : 17/05/2011
Date of Notice of Hearing : 00/00/2011
Hearing held on : 00/00/2011
Information sought:
1&2. The Appellant sought information as how many candidates were selected with respect to Advt No 4-
6/2009-AdminII (A) actually already working under Dr. Deepak Choudhary, and their names etc in the
given format.
3. Provides the name of members of selection board wrt. above advertisement and name of
physiotherapy External and Internal Experts in the Board.
4&5. Name of Physiotherapists working in hospital who are in a family along with posting details since
01/01/2000 in given format.
6. Details of disciplinary action taken against the Physiotherapist not registered with the Delhi council
of Physiotherapy.
7. Rules & Regulations for Internships in Physiotherapy in Hospital and whether mandatory for
students to pass final year examination in result declared to join as an intern and whether registration with
the Delhi council of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy as mandatory
condition for internship?
Reply of PIO:
Query No 1 to 6 - The information sought replied by PIO.
Query No 7 - The information sought doesn't pertain to CPIO section.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Reply not satisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not Enclosed only covering letter is enclosed.
It appears that FAA provided information in relation to Query No 7.(page nos 16 &17)
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The reply in respect of Query no3&7 is not correct
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Satish Raghvan;
Respondent: Dr. Manoj Kumar, PIO & Sr. CMO; Dr. Pankaj Garg, MO and Dr. R. K. Anand,
CMO(NFSG);
The PIO has provided the information on queries 01 to 06 as admitted by the Appellant. As
regards query-7 he PIO has brought his answers stating that there are no rules and regulations in existence.
Earlier the PIO has given an explanation for this.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
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
21 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)DIS