Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00425
Dated: 23 October 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Minto Rattan
F.No.120, BLock 8
The Mohali Employes Coop. H.B.
Society Ltd., (Opp Army Institution of
Law) Sector-68, Mohali,
Name of the Public Authority : Panjab University, Chandigarh
Background:
Shri Minto Rattan of Mohali filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Panjab University, Chandigarh, on 14 November 2007,
seeking information regarding the Reservation Policy followed by the Panjab
University. The PIO vide his letter dated 17 December 2007 replied to the RTI-
application. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an
appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 15 December 2007 and then
approached the Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal on 25
December 2007, which was registered in the Commission on 26 April 2008. The
Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 22
September 2008. No one represented on behalf of the Respondents whereas the
Appellant, Shri Minto Rattan, was present in person.
2. In the hearing scheduled for 22 September 2008, it was noticed that the
Respondents did not turn up. The Commission also recalled that the case had
been postponed for this very reason earlier on 17 September 2007. On that
scheduled date, the Commission received a request from the Respondent to
have the case adjourned on account of elections to be held in the University.
The Commission agreed to the request and rescheduled the hearing for 22
September 2008. But to its greatest surprise, the Respondent had again not
turned up. Nothing could be more serious for the Commission than this sort of
lackadaisical attitude of the Respondents. The Commission, therefore, had
decided to re-schedule the hearing on 20 October 2008 at 11.30 a.m. Since the
Appellant would have to come again for no fault of his and had also suffered
undue harassment, the Commission directed the Respondents to pay to the
Appellant the full fare equivalent to Delhi-Chandigarh to and fro fare and
Rs.1,000/- for his stay in Delhi. The Respondents were also directed to pay
Rs.5,000/- to the Appellant on account of the harassment caused to the
Appellant.
3. The matter was taken up for hearing again on 20 October 2008, as
scheduled.
4. Prof. S.S. Bari, Registrar & PIO and Appellate Authority, represented the
Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri Minto Rattan, was present in person.
Decision:
6. The Commission heard both the sides and noted that this was second
hearing in the case: the first being postponed because of the absence of the
PIO. Accordingly, the Commission rescheduled the hearing for today (20
October 2008) and ordered a compensation to be paid to the Appellant for
coming again for the hearing for no fault of his and for the mental harassment
that he had undergone. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that he had
not been paid the compensation although the Commission’s orders said that the
compensation should be paid by 13 October 2008. According to the
Respondents, however, they received the Commission’s orders only on 16
October 2008. Accordingly, the Commission directs them now to pay the
compensation together with the amounts mentioned in the Commission’s
earlier Order dated 14 November 2008. The RTI-application basically revolved
around the implementation of the reservation policy in the University.
According to the Respondents, they had been following the Reservation Policy
as laid down by the Government but not maintaining a Roster. However, the
issue was taken up in the Standing Committee which met in August 2008 which
directed the maintenance of the SC/ST Roster and now the Respondents were
setting up an infrastructure to follow the Reservation Policy as also the orders
of the Standing Committee. During the hearing, the Appellant brought out a
number of facts on which he was dissatisfied with the reply given by the
Respondents. However, as these have not been stated in detail and
specifically, the Commission directs the Appellant to specify the lacunae that
he finds in the reply of the Respondents who will get 20 working days to provide
any clarification that the Appellant may desire. The case shall be treated as
finally closed in case there is no communication from the Appellant by 14
November 2008.
7. The Commission also noted that one official was acting as the PIO and
also the Appellate Authority. When asked for clarification on this issue, the
Respondents stated that Orders had not been issued for appointment of the PIO
and they would be nominating one soon. The Commission directs them to
ensure that this is done by 4 November 2008.
8. During the hearing, the Respondents brought to the notice of the
Commission the fact that they had sent a fax to the Commission pointing out
their problems in attending the hearing on the scheduled date and to
reschedule the hearing. According to their written submission, they had tried
to contact the Commission on phone a number of times and waited till evening
for the connection to materialize and when it did they spoke to the Under
Secretary, Shri G. Subramanian, explaining to him their inability to come to the
Commission for the hearing in view of the elections in the University, for which
it was essential for the Registrar who is the Appellate Authority and also
deputing as PIO to be present. In view of the submissions, while the
Commission still recommends the payment of to and fro Delhi-Chandigarh
journey and Rs.1,000/- for the stay in Delhi to the Appellant since he had to
come for not fault of his, it withdraws the payment of Rs.5,000/- to the
Appellant.
9. During the hearing, the Appellant requested that he may be allowed
inspection of the Roster whenever it is prepared. The Commission accepts the
submission and since it is a sensitive issue, directs the Respondents to prepare
the Roster as early as possible but in any case by 15 December 2008. In case,
the Roster is not ready by then and the Appellant may come to the Commission
which would decide the further course of action.
10. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Minto Rattan, F.No.120, Block 8, The Mohali Employes Coop. H.B.
Society Ltd., (Opp Army Institution of Law) Sector-68, Mohali,
2. The Public Information Officer, Punjab University, Sector-14, Chandigarh
3. The Appellate Authority, Punjab University, Sector-14, Chandigarh
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC