CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002231/5296
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002231
Appellant : Ms. Manisha Dahiya,
D/o Shri Ranbir Singh Dahiya
R/o Flat No. 9, Type-C
Police Station Ashok Vihar,
Delhi-110052
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
Public Information officer
University of Delhi,
Main Campus, Delhi-110 007
RTI application filed on : 03/02/2009
PIO replied : 23/02/2009
First Appeal filed on : 22/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 15/09/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 02/09/2009
Information sought:
Appellant sought following information regarding her candidature for Ph.D in Physics as OBC
candidate:
1. Whether the candidate belonging to OBC category declared by the Govt. of NCT Delhi and
having OBC certificate issued by the SDM concerned of GNCT of Delhi, is eligible for
getting admission in Delhi University or not.
2. Copy of result vide which candidates were declared qualified (category wise i.e
General/OBC) for PHD in Physics may be supplied.
3. Copies of marks sheet of candidates who have been declared qualified of PHD in Physics
i.e General & OBC may be supplied.
4. Is it correct that Appellant has applied for PHD in Physics as OBC candidate?
5. Is it correct that Appellant's application for PHD in Physics as OBC candidate was
accepted by the Physics department of Delhi University?
6. Is it correct that Appellant was called for interview of PHD in Physics
7. Is it correct that Appellant was declared as qualified candidate for Phd in Physics as OBC
candidate at Sl. No. 3?
8. Is it correct that after declaring Appellant as qualified candidate as OBC for Phd in Physics,
the official of Physics department of Delhi University ahs asked Appellant to deposit the
Pay Certificate of Appellant's father to determine whether Appellant's case falls under
creamy layer as OBC candidate?
9. Is it correct that as per directions of officials of Physics department of Delhi University,
Appellant deposited the Pay Certificate of Appellant's father?
Appellant asked following questions regarding her candidature:
i. If Appellant was not eligible as OBC candidate then why her Application as OBC candidate
was accepted?
ii. Appellant was not eligible then why she was called for interview?
iii. Reasons for declaration of Appellant as qualified candidate as OBC for Phd in Physics
iv. Reasons for asking the Appellant to dep9osit the Pay Certificate of Appellant's father, if
she was not eligible for Phd. In Physics as OBC candidate.
v. Reasons for not considering the Appellant as General candidate if she is not eligible as
OBC.
vi. Reasons for asking the Appellant's guide to submit experience certificate.
vii. Whether any new rule/law has been framed between the period from declaring result of
qualified candidates for Phd. In Physics and issuing letter No PD-1289 dated07/11/2008 or
not.
viii. If yes a copy of the same might be supplied to the Appellant.
Appellant asked for reasons for not canceling the candidature of Appellant as initial stage if OBC
certificate issued by the concerned SDM was not acceptable in University of Delhi.
Copy of OBC certificates submitted by the candidates who had been declared qualified for Phd
in Physics as OBC candidate.
Is it correct that in view of above facts Appellant was deprived of from Fundamental right
given by the Constitution of India apply as General candidate for Phd in Physics with no fault on
part of Appellant.
PIO's Reply:
Respondent mentioned that most of the questions about the status of such Ph.D admissions may be
obtained from the Head, Deptt. of Physics. Policies pertaining to OBC in the University regarding
admissions the same are available under Public domain in M/HRD website www.goidirectory.nic.in.
The University has adopted the above guidelines and issued instructions to all Head of the departments
relating to admissions in the University from the academic year 2008-09 onwards.
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO did not provide point wise information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA stated that the information sought by the appellant was not provided by the PIO point wise. He
mentioned the same might be provided to the Appellant by 15/05/2009.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant's father requested to direct the PIO to furnish the point wise reply as requested vide RTI
Application.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. M.A.Sikandar, APIO on behalf of PIO Mr. Jay Chanda;
Many of the queries so the Appellant do not seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act. However, some of the queries such as “Copy of result vide which candidates were declared
qualified (category wise i.e General/OBC) for PHD in Physics may be supplied” were certainly
seeking information as defined under RTI Act. The FAA had ordered the information to be given by
his order of 15/05/2009. The Respondent states that the deemed PIO Prof.D.S. Kulshrestha gave the
information on 26/10/2009 which was sent to the Appellant on 27/10/2009. The Respondent was asked
to explain the reason for the information not been sent to the Appellant by 15/05/2009 as ordered by
the FAA. The Respondent is not able to give any explanation for this delay.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Prof.D.S. Kulshrestha is
guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not
replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the
orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also
be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 11 December 2009 at
10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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
30 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj