CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003085/6473
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003085
Appellant : Mr. Rahul Chauhan,
1/4229, Ram Nagar Extension,
Mandouli Road, Gali No. 9
Shahadara,
Delhi-110092
Respondent : Mr. O.P.Shukla
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
Deptt. of Training & Technical Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Pitampura, Muniya Maya Ram Road,
Delhi-110088
RTI application filed on : 24/08/2009
PIO replied : 23/09/2009
First Appeal filed on : 01/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 13/11/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 09/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 17/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 19/01/2010
Sl.No Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. Name, post of the officials who were given the A proposal for recommendation in
responsibility for amendment in rules for promotional rules was given by chief
departmental promotion (according to branch & concerned assistant for approval
mentioned letter date 24/03/2009) on different levels.
2. Daily progress report on said letter dated It is not possible to furnish daily progress
24/03/2009. report the letter, because action on
recommendation was done by various
branches/departments/officials.
3. As there was mentioned in said letter(page no. 3 The matter in context of said letter is
of page no. 3) that process of applying has to be under consideration, and it will be try to
completed within 6 months. Whether above take action within stipulated time.
mentioned action would be completed within
mentioned period.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incorrect & incomplete information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The additional information provided by AD(Trg.) & DD(Admn.) were enclosed as FAA
mentioned.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Information concerning Administrative Branch (E-1) was not provided. Information was not
provided as serial mentioned in original RTI application.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rahul Chauhan;
Respondent: Mr. O.P.Shukla, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
The PIO has supplied the information of certain categories where amendment proposals have
already been made. The Appellant wants the specific amendment proposal for Maintenance
Engineer, Foreman Instructor and Workshop Superintendent. The PIO states that these were not
been given so far. The Appellant is drawing the attention of the PIO and the Commission to the
office memorandum no. AB.14017/61/2008-Estt.(RR) in which it is stated that, “Ministries/
Departments may initiate action to complete the review in this regard and furnish necessary
amendment proposals to the DOPT and UPSC in the case of Group-A and Group-B posts within
6 months form the date of issue of this office memorandum.” The Appellant points out that as
per the statement of the PIO it means that DOPT’s office memorandum has not been followed.
The Appellant also points out that a review committee is supposed to be setup for this purpose.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to either give the amendment proposal for Maintenance Engineer,
Foreman Instructor and Workshop Superintendent or give information to the Appellant that the
DOPT’s Memorandum has not been adhered to. The PIO will also provide the names of the
persons on the Review Committee to the Appellant. The PIO will provide the complete
information to the Appellant before 30 January 2010.
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
19 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj