CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001220/11933
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001220
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kumar
Vivekananda College,
Vivek Vihar, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
CPIO
University of Delhi, Main Campus,
Delhi-110007.
RTI application filed on : 20/01/2010 PIO replied : 09/02/2010 First appeal filed on : 08/03/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 08/04/2010 Second Appeal received on : 07/05/2010 Notice of hearing sent on : 10/03/2011 Hearing held on : 09/04/2011 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought copies of rules for recruitment of PA to Principal in Delhi University and its
Colleges, copy of rules for appointment of Sr. PA to Principal, Stenographer and Personal Assistant,
whether for the post of PA to Principal experience of Regular Service is required, how many years of
experience is required, copy of non-teaching and teaching staff rules for PHD and so on………..
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO in his reply has stated that some of the queries of the Appellant do not qualify as information
as per Section-2(f) of the RTI Act and for other queries had sought `.30/- as additional fee for 15
pages of information.
First Appeal:
The PIO has not provided complete information with respect to query-1, 2, 3 & 4. The Complete
information should be provided.
Order of the FAA:
“3. On perusal of the reply of the PIG. it appears that the PIO has provided information to the
Appellant on the basis of the input received from the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), Assistant Registrar
(Estab NT) and Assistant Registrar (Estate), who are the deemed PIOs under Section 5(4) and 5(5) of
the Act,
Decision:–
1. After considering the Appeal, it is noticed that available information has already provided to the
Appellant by the PIO. Further, information sought by the Appellant at sl, nos. 2-6 of the CA is not a
request for information, rather interpretation/clarification of the rules, which is beyond the purview of
the Act. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the Appellant.
2. The appeal is decided accordingly.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Complete information was not provided. The FAA had also not looked at the queries and decided the
matter without looking at the issues.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda, CPIO;
The Respondent states that all the information available on the records has been provided to the
Appellant and queries 2 to 6 of the Appellant seek interpretation of the rules which are not available on
the records. The PIO has provided a copy of the rules to the Appellant. The appellant had paid the
additional fees and had received all the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
09 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)