Central Information Commission
J S Gunawat vs Deptt Of Information Technology on 26 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DEOIT/A/2020/668564
In the matter of:
J S Gunawat
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Sr. Director & CPIO,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology Standardization,
Testing & Quality Certification Directorate,
Electronics Test & Development Centre,
Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur - 302017
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/01/2020 CPIO replied on : 21/02/2020 First appeal filed on : 02/03/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 20/04/2020 Date of Hearing : 25/11/2021 Date of Decision : 25/11/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Meenakshi Jwala, Senior Director and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the Office order No. 2(6)/2000-P-II (Vol. IV) dated 18/06/2007, issued by the Directorate of STQC, New Delhi regarding the promotion of Hindi Typist. Also provide copies of action taken by ETDC, Jaipur office.1
2. Provide a copy of the receipt register for 21.06.2007.
3. Provide a copy of the Office order No. 12(4)/2000-PA dated 22/05/2000, issued by the Directorate of STQC, New Delhi, regarding the promotion of Hindi Typist. Also provide copies of action taken by ETDC, Jaipur office.
4. Any other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the complete information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that the relevant copy of the order was given. She also submitted that whatever information was available was given.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2020 provided a point-wise reply to the applicant. In respect of point no. 1 the appellant was informed that information is not available. In respect of points no. 2 and 3 available documents were given. In respect of point no. 4 instead of providing the seniority list for the year 1995 to 2019 the CPIO had provided the seniority list for the year 2010 only. In respect of point no. 5 no answer was given by the CPIO.
The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and therefore had filed a first appeal. However, there is no FAA's order available on record. The appellant therefore filed a second appeal but failed to explain the deficiency in the reply given.
The CPIO vide his written submissions dated 10.11.2021 submitted that information only on point no. 1 was not given as the same was not available in the relevant files. She further explained that the copy of the sought office order has now been sent to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, it was clear that points no. 4 and 5 were not addressed properly. The CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on both the points to the appellant within 7 days, from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3