CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001159/13102
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001159
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Uma Kant
C-201, Albert Square,
Gole Market,
New Delhi – 110001
Respondent : Mr. V. K. Bansal
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC – 18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92
RTI application filed on : 10/01/2011
PIO replied : 03/02/2011
Reply of PIO after FAA order : 25/03/2011
First appeal filed on : 24/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 21/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 27/04/2011
Information sought by the appellant :
1. Whether DSSSB had inserted advertisement in the Employment News issue 14-20 April, 2007
vide Advt. No. 02/2007, Post Code 019/07 for recruitment of 297 vacancies of Assistant
‘Teachers Nursery) in MCD.
2. If so, what were the crucial date of Eligibiity viz(a) acquiring Diploma/ Certificate in Nursery
Teacher Training Education Programme of a duration of not less than two years or B.Ed
(Nursery) from recognized Institution/Board/University and (b) upper Age limit as eligibility
for the above vacancies of Asstt. Teacher (Nursery) through DSSSB.
3. Whether the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its Judgement dated May 08,2008 in CWP No.
3309/2007 Vinod Bala Bunkar Vs DSSSB & Ors in para 8, has directed” In these
circumstances, age limit fixed in the advertisement No. 02/2007 for recruitment of Teacher
(Nursery) cannot be accepted and liable to be struck down as it is contrary to the notified
Recruitment Rules. It is, however, clarified that DSSSB is entitled to and can issue a fresh
advertisement and invite applications on the basis of notified Recruitment Rules of MCD and
the Regulations under NCTE Act and in case of any conflict between the two the Regulation
framed under NCTE Act, shall prevail”.
4. If so, whether the recruitment action was stopped/cancelled.
5. If so, whether there was any conflict relating to upper limit of age between MOD and
Regulations framed under NCTE Act.
6. Whether it is a fact that as per para 10 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order dated May 08,
2008 Vinod Bala Bunkar Vs DSSSB & ors in CWP No. 3309, has clarified that once the
amended Recruitment Rules are notified MCD and DSSSB will be entitled to make recruitment
as per the amended Recruitment Rules of course, subject to the right of the petitioners to
challenge the same
7. A certified copy of note portion from page one to last page of file in which such decision for
not issuing fresh advertisement of 297 vacancies of Asstt. Teacher (Nursery) for the year 2006-
Page 1 of 3
07 which was earlier advertised vide Advt.- No. 02/2007 inspite of clear clarification given by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court mentioned in Point 3 and 4 above.
8. Whether on the requisition. Of MCD, DSSSB has inserted advertisement of 500 fresh
vacancies (208-UR, 62-SC, 31-ST and 11 1-OBC and 88-ST Backlog) of Assistant Teacher
(Nursery) for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide Advt. No. 002/20 10 Post code 68/20 10.
9. What is the crucial date of eligibility viz. (a) acquiring Diploma/Certificate in Nursery Teacher
Training Education Programme of a duration of not less titan two years or B.Ed. (Nursery)
from recognised Institution/Board/University/or the above fresh vacancies of 2010-11 and
2011-12.
10. What is the present status of recruitment action.
11. Whether there is likelihood that a large no. of applicants including some of the petitioners
might be not eligible on the closing date of receipt of application due to over age ie more than
30 years whereas such applicants were very much eligible for advt. No. C 2/2007.
12. Whether it is also a fact that a large no. of applicants who have now submitted application in
response to Advt. No. 002/20 10 were/ are not eligible for 297 vacancies of Advt. No. 02/2007
as they do not in possession of Two Years Diploma in NTT during 2006 at that point of time.
13. In view of above point (iii) and (id) whether it will attract Contempt of Court.
14. Whether non-re advertising of 297 vacancies of 2006-07 will attract contempt of court.
15. If so, the remedial action proposed to be taken by DSSSB.
16. If so, whether DSSSB proposes to readvertise 500 vacancies of Asstt. Teacher (Nursery)
clearly mentioning year-wise eligibility and upper age limit right from the year 2006-07, 2007-
08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 vis — a vis crucialdate of acquiring Diploma/
Certificate in NTTor B.Ed.(Nursery) and upper age limit as on 1st April of the financial year/
vacancy year as under:
1st January, 2006 – for vacancies for the year 2006-07 (already advertised by DSSSB
vide Adv. No. 02/2007
1st January, 2007 – for vacancies for the year 2007-08.
1st January, 2008 – For vacancies for the year 2008-09
1st January, 2009 – For vacancies for the year 2009-10.
1st January, 2010 – For vacancies for the year 2010-11
1st January, 2011 – For vacancies for the year 2011-12:
17. If not the reasons there for.
Reply of the PIO :
12. No such information is available
13. No such information is available
14. The Board has advertised the vacancies(except 57) as requisitioned by MCD
15. No such information is available
16. No such information is available
Ground of the First Appeal:
Incomplete information has been provided.
Order of the FAA:
PIO and Dy. Secy. (P&P) are directed to send the information to the appellant within seven working
days.
Reply of Dy. Secy. (P&P) after FAA Order :
1. Yes
2. (a) Closing date for receipt of application was 02-05-2007
(b) Age limit was 20-27 yrs(relaxable as per instructions or order issued by the Central Govt.
3. Yes
4. Stopped
5. Relates to MCD
6. Yes
Page 2 of 3
7. The applicant can visit the Board and inspect the concerned file and obtain the copies of relevant
papers after depositing requisite fees.
8. 381 vacancies advertised by the board
9. Upper age limit 32 yrs
Closing date 30.07.2010
10. Exam is to be conducted for post code – 68/10
11. No such information is available
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information provided is incomplete.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. V. K. Bansal, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The respondent states that he has provided all the information as per available records to the
Appellant. As regards query-7 the respondent has offered an inspection of the relevant records.
However the appellant has not inspected the relevant records. The appellant has alleged that the PIO
has provided false and misleading information but has not provided any evidence or arguments to
support this claim.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records appears to have 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
25 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
Page 3 of 3
