CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002495/5607
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002495
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Nigam,
Hindi Translator, Room No. 65, Municipal
Secretary Office, Town Hall, Delhi – 110006
Respondent : Mr. Ravinder Kumar
Public Information Officer (CED) & DLO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Establishment Department,
Town Hall, Delhi – 110006
RTI application filed on : 28/01/2009
PIO replied : 20/03/2009
First appeal filed on : 26/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal received on : 01/10/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 14/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 19/11/2009
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Seniority List of eligible candidates for the post of No such list of seniority had
AO/AA&C indicating names of such persons. been mentioned separately.
2. Is it true that some posts of AO/AA&C are lying Cue to non eligible candidates of
vacant and it is learnt that these are going to be the Suptd. In their feeder cadre,
filled up on deputation despite there being eligible some vacant positions were
candidates? filled by deputation.
3. Why are eligible candidates from feeder As above.
categories denied promotion?
4. How can the promotion quota of Superintendent, The promotion in feeder cadre
Translators and Senior Stenographers be fixed athad been made by the
75%, 5% and 20% respectively? establishment department as per
RR.
5. Correct percentage quota keeping in mind the As above.
strength of each of the same.
6. Reasons why under General Policy of MCD the The matter was under
CED had not implemented the resolution passed reconsideration due to
by the House in respect of promotion of the objections raised by other
aforementioned categories of employees. ministerial category and staff
7. Seriousness of the CED regarding enhancement of As above.
the 10% promotion quota of translators.
8. Time in which the above 10% enhancement As above
would be implemented.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
No Order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Nigam;
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, APIO on behalf of Mr. Ravinder Kumar, PIO & DLO;
The Appellant had sought the seniority list of Superintends. The PIO has provided this
list. The seniority list has been prepared in 2003 and the respondent states that no seniority list
has been prepared after that. The Appellant wants a seniority list as of now, which the appellant
states does not exist. The Appellant is now requesting a list of the working Superintendents,
Senior Stenographers and Translators. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the list
alongwith their education qualification wherever available.
Decision:
The Appeal is
The PIO is directed to provide a list of the working Superintendents, Senior Stenographers and
Translators. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the list alongwith their education
qualification wherever available. This information will be given to the Appellant before 05
December 2009.
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 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)