CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003202/6649Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003202
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Santra Gehlot,
A-3/147, Janak Puri,
New Delhi- 110018.
Respondent : Mrs. Skhukla Malhotra
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director (West-B)
Government of NCT of Delhi.
O/o Dy Director of Education,
District West B, G Block, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 11/08/2009
PIO replied : 04/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 13/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 18/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 02/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 02/02/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Status report of the selection scale Performa submitted The file of the Appellant (relating to selection
by the Appellant. scale) had been sent to the ACP cell on
b) Certified copy and file notings of action taken by the 07/09/2009 vide letter dated F. DDE/
department on the above mentioned selection scale (WB)Admn/09/1006.
performa.
2. Status report on the medical card application that the The HOS, GSKV, A Block Janakpuri had
Appellant had submitted and also paid the amount informed that the medical card had already
needed. been collected by the Appellant on
b) Reasons for the delay. 01/09/2009.
c) Copy of the rule.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that a representative of the Appellant had mentioned that the Appellant did not receive the
PIO’s reply. The PIO did highlight the fact that a reply had already been sent on 04/09/2009. The same reply
was then handed over to the representative of the Appellant. FAA disposed off the case when the
representative ‘expressed his satisfaction’ on receiving the PIO’s written reply.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA. Despite the Appellant’s reservation and displeasure over the
information provided at the time of hearing, FAA still disposed off the case.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 02 February 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Bharti on behalf of Ms. Santra Gehlot;
Respondent: Mrs. Shukla Malhotra, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (West);
The PIO had given information but is now asked to provide following additional information:
1- Query-1: The status of the file as of now and the file notings of the same.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant before 15
February 2010.”
Facts leading to Non-compliance hearing on 02 August 2010:
The Commission received a letter dated 09/03/2010 from the Appellant wherein she alleged that the
information provided by the PIO was incorrect and incomplete. Subsequently, the Appellant also clarified the
grounds vide a letter dated 22/03/2010 on the basis of which she alleged that the information provided by the
PIO was incorrect and incomplete.
In light of the aforesaid, the Commission scheduled a hearing to decide whether there has been non-
compliance of the Commission’s order in the present matter. In view of this, Mrs. Shukla Malhotra, PIO &
Dy. Director, O/o Deputy Director of Education, GNCTD and Ms. Santra Gehlot were directed to present
themselves before the Commission on August 2, 2010 at 4:00 pm along with all the relevant records and
respective submissions.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 02 August 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. B. S. Gehlot on behalf of Ms. Santra Gehlot;
Respondent: Mrs. Shukla Malhotra, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (West-B);
The PIO has given a statement from the ACP Cell in which it has been shown that Ms. Santra Gehlot’s
qualification is B.Com, B.Ed. The appellant has stated that this is false since she has M.A. and B.Ed. The PIO
has brought the service book in which it is mneiionted that the appellant has done M.A. and B.Ed. The PIO
points out that she had not given any false information btu has only provided the statement from ACP Cell. It
is evident that this is at variance with the qualification of the appellant shown in her service book. In view of
this the PIO is directed to give the attested copy of the service book of the appellant and a statement that
whereas the educational qualification in the statement of the ACP Cell shows that appellant as having B.Com
and B.Ed the entire in the service book show that the appellant has done M.A. and B.Ed.
Adjunct Decision.
The PIO is directed to give the attested copy of the service book of the appellant and a
statement that whereas the educational qualification in the statement of the ACP Cell shows
that appellant as having B.Com and B.Ed the entire in the service book show that the appellant
has done M.A. and B.Ed. This information will be provided to the appellant before
15 August 2010.
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
02 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)