Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr.Rampal Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 March, 2011
                          Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000156/11609
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000156

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Rampal Sharma
1/5413, Gali no. 15,
Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara,
New Delhi -32

Respondent : Public Information Officer
Education Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara (South Zone),
Karkarduma, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.

RTI application filed on             :      20/9/2010
PIO replied                          :      04/10/2010
First appeal filed on                :      01/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order      :      Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on            :      14/01/2011

Information sought:
   1. How many applications were received for the positions of primary teachers during          in

2. What was the cut off for the short-listed candidates?

3. Which candidates were selected in the different categories?

4. Of the selected candidates, how many have been appointed and in which schools>

5. Application letters were scrutinized by heads of which schools. Photocopy of the order made
in this regard.

6. Which application letters were rejected and for what reasons?

7. How many teachers were appointed to scrutinize applications? Their names, the name of the
school and certified copy of the order made with respect to their duty regarding

8. What alternate provisions were made for the classes of the teachers who were deputed to
the office for this purpose.

9. Copy of the permission of the competent authority for the deputation of the teachers to
the office.

10. Which officers allotted schools to the appointed candidates?

11. Certified copy of the modus operandi of the allotment of schools by the competent authority
with respect to the basis on which the allotment was made.

12. How many male teachers were appointed in Girls’ schools in the first sitting and how many
female teachers were appointed to Boys’ schools in the second sitting?

PIO’s reply:

Asked to deposit the prescribed fee to obtain the documents

First Appeal:

Information not supplied even after fees was deposited on 7/10/2010.

Order of the FAA:

– No order. Reply from PIO on 03/11/2010.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

– Information not supplied. No order on first appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Sharma representing Mr. Rampal Sharma
Respondent : Absent;

The Appellant states that the RTI application has been filed on 20/09/2010 and the PIO sent a
letter asking him to deposit Rs.266/- on 04/10/2010. He deposited the fee of 07/10/2010 but the
information was dispatched on 03/11/2010. Thus information was not provided within 30 days period
and the information provided has not been attested duly. The Appellant states that the PIO has offered
an inspection of the records by a letter of 18/01/2011 but this is irrelevant since queries 8, 11 & 12 do
not need any inspection of the records. The appellant also states that no specific information has been
provided to him on his queries 8, 11 & 12. The Appellant states that the FAA is also failed in his duty
by not giving any orders in this matter.


The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information on queries 8, 11 & 12 of the RTI
Application to the Appellant before 10 April 2011. The PIO is also directed to refund
the amount of Rs.266/- taken as additional fee to the Appellant since the information
was not provided within the period mandated under the RTI Act. The PIO will ensure
that the refund check of Rs.266/- is sent to the Appellant before 10 May 2011.
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
23 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK))

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

95 queries in 0.122 seconds.