Central Information Commission Judgements

Smt. Parvati Sharma vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 3 October, 2011

Central Information Commission
Smt. Parvati Sharma vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 3 October, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                  Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000847/SG/14999
                                                         Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000847/SG

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :    Smt. Parvati Sharma
                                           Shakti Seva Sadan
                                           444 Bankhandi Mathura
                                           UP

Respondent                            :    Public Information Officer,
                                           Oriental Bank of Commerce
                                           C 18/b, First Floor
                                           Deen Dayal Puram
                                           Bareli-243122

RTI application filed on              :    24/12/2010
PIO replied on                        :    23/12/2010
First Appeal filed on                 :    13/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order on    :    No Response
Second Appeal received on             :    07/03/2011

S.No               Information Sought                                Reply of PIO
1.       Did you advertise in the information Information related to the recruitment of
       related to the vacancies in public.           Subordinate category(peon category) were
                                                     told well in advance. However, publicly it
                                                     was advertised in Bank Branches, state
                                                     offices and other important public places.
2.      Has age made as a basis for fixation of last Yes.
       date of application.
3.     Has appointment letters been issued to the Appointment letters are yet to be issued.
       successful candidates as per A309 of
       Indian Constitution.
4.      Had the appointment letters been issued? Appointment work is in progress.
5.     Please give all details       regarding the Appointment work is in progress.
       selected candidates.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not Satisfied with the reply of the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not Enclosed.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Not Satisfied with the reply of the FAA.
 Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Dr. Netra Pal Shastri representing Smt. Parvati Sharma on video conference
from NIC-Mathura Studio;

Respondent : Absent;

The PIO has given the information available on the records but is now directed to give the
following additional information:

1- Query-2: Proof of having putup notices in various places.

2- Query-3: The PIO is directed to provide the information regarding the basis of selection.
3- Query-5: The PIO is directed to provide the list of appointed candidates and their details
including the marks obtained by them in each subject as sought by the Appellant.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 25 October 2011.

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
03 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)