CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001611/4506
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001611
Appellant : Mr. Krishan Lal
E-16, Mukherjee Park, Tilak Nagar
New Delhi-18
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
PIO,
Delhi University
Main Campus, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 20/03/2009
PIO replied : 24/04/2009-04/05/2009
First Appeal filed on : 30/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 01/06/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 03/07/2009
Information sought:
1. Provide Photostat copies of Academic Council Resolution(s) No.206 dated
02/11/1961 and No.107 dated 19/07/1962.
2. Provide information regarding incumbents/persons appointed and confirmed after
10/06/1965 before 28/02/1966 on the recommendations of the duly constituted ad-hoc
selection Committee on temporary basis in the grade of Rs. 300-25-350/375 against
the regular post as Research Associates in (Lectures grade of Rs. 400-800/950) in the
centre of Advanced Study in Botany in terms of A.C.Resolution No.323 dated
10/01/1963 and A.C.Resolution No. 196 dated 10/09/1965.
PIO's Reply:
The application was referred to the Sections /department concerned. PIO vide his letter dated
24/04/2009-04/05/2009 had enclosed information provided by the Section concerned
regarding Appellant's query No.1.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information was provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA ordered that if relevant information was available, it be provided by the Establishment
Branch before 29/06/2009 free of cost and copies of the above mentioned resolutions were
enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information not provided.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Krishan Lal
Respondent: Mr. Jay Chanda, PIO
The Appellant has worked in Delhi University from 1966 to 1997. He believes that some
injustice was done to him in his appointment and grades. He has been seeking information
repeatedly about different matters and the public authority has been providing information
based on whatever records are available. Some records of 1960’s may not be available and
records that the Appellant insist should be there may not have been there originally. The
Appellant has also done repeated inspections and states that the information he seeks is not
available in the files. In this situation his continuous filing of RTI Applications is not going
uncover any fresh information.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
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
20 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SP)
