In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001643
Date of Hearing : August 29, 2011
Date of Decision : August 29, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Ms.Rani
D/o Shri Ramesh Mishra
R/o A41, st.No.3
Jaitpur Extension
Badarpur
New Delhi 110 044
The Applicant was present along with Shri Raj Kumar Mishra and Shri Ashok Kumar Sherawat during
the hearing.
Respondents
Delhi Transport Corporation
O/o the Senior Manager
BBM complex
Delhi 110 009
Represented by : Ms.Renu Popli, PIO & Sr.Manager
Shri Subash Chander
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001643
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.9.7.10 with the PIO, DTC seeking information against four
points including the reasons as to why the person (Regn.No.2010120085) who is much junior to her
in the employment exchange (Regn. No.2010129019) got an interview letter and was recruited
whereas she did not get even the interview letter. .Ms.Renu Popli, PIO replied on 9.8.10 enclosing
the following information dt.22.7.10 furnished by the concerned officer:
Engagement of conductor on contractual basis for 89 days from the candidates sponsored by the
employment exchange were considered on seniority of registration with last No.2009152549.
Contractual engagement is not covered under reservation.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.11.10.10 with the Appellate Authority
stating that information provided is inadequate. The Appellate Authority replied on 30.11.10. Being
aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.11.7.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing the Appellant sought information against all the points. The Commission therefore
reviewed the information sought, pointwise and decided as given below:
Point 1
The Commission holds that no information has been sought against this point.
Point 2
The Appellant submitted that the person who is junior to her had received the interview letter from
the DTC whereas she has not received any. The Respondents however maintained their position
that the last person to be called for the interview was one with the registration number 2009152549.
The Appellant who alleged that a person with a registration number after that give to her has been
called for an interview by the DTC, however was unable to produce any proof that the junior (Roll no.
2010120085) was indeed called for the interview. In this peculiar situation, the Commission believes
that Appellant will only be satisfied if she is allowed by the to inspect all the records relating to the
engagement of conductor on contractual basis for 89 days, on a mutually convenient date so that
she can check for herself whether her junior has been called for an interview and if yes, the reasons
as to why she/he(the junior) was called and why she(Appellant) was not. The Appellant may be
provided with attested copies of documents, free of cost.
Point 3
The Respondents submitted that information sought runs into 10000 pages and compiling the same
would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. When the Appellant suggested
that the same be provided in the form of a CD, the Respondents submitted that even then it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority since 10000 pages will first have to be
scanned before the same are copied into a CD.
In the light of this submission, the Commission directs the PIO to allow the Appellant to inspect the
relevant records on a mutually convenient date and time and to provide him with attested copies of
documents free of cost identified by him upto 100 pages free of cost and to charge him at Rs.2/ per
page for pages beyond that number.
Point 4
The Commission directs the PIO to provide the information sought against this query.
All information to be provided by 29.9.11.
3. The Commission directs the PIO to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against
him/her u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for not replying to the information sought against points 3 and 4.
He/She is directed to submit his/her written response so as to reach the Commission by 5.10.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms.Rani
D/o Shri Ramesh Mishra
R/o A41, st.No.3
Jaitpur Extension
Badarpur
New Delhi 110 044
2. The Public Information Officer
Delhi Transport Corporation
O/o the Senior Manager
BBM complex
Delhi 110 009
3. The Appellate Authority
Delhi Transport Corporation
O/o the Chief General Manager
I.P.Estate
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.