Central Information Commission
Ravi Qazi vs High Court Of Delhi on 12 March, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi-110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos.: CIC/DSLSA/A/2018/174709/HCDEL
CIC/DSLSA/A/2019/102433/HCDEL
Shri Ravi Qazi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority,
Central Office, Patiala House Courts Complex,
New Delhi- 110001 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2021
Date of Decision : 12.03.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
174709 09.07.2018 07.09.2018 19.09.2018 01.10.2018 28.12.2018
102433 14.09.2018 12.10.2018 13.11.2018 11.12.2018 16.01.2019
(1) CIC/DSLSA/A/2018/174709/HCDEL
The Appellant sent an RTI application through speed post dated 08.08.2018
seeking information on following 11 points:
1. Number of sanctioned posts in each designation in Delhi State Legal
Services Authority. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
2. Copies of Recruitment Rules showing the eligibility for appointment to
the post. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
3. Method/ Process of Recruitment to fill the post in Delhi State Legal
Services Authority. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
4. Criteria for promotion if any, other than Recruitment Rules may be
supplied. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
5. Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as provided in
FRSR and copy of the minutes of the various promotions made since
L992 till date. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
Page 1 of 4
6. Last meeting of (DPC) Departmental Promotion Committee held in Delhi
State Legal Services Authority and whether the meetings of
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) are held as per the schedule
of DOPT, Govt. of India. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
7. Whether the promotion is considered by Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) on the basis of roster of vacancies based on seniority.
Attested copy of the same may be provided.
8. Verification:
a) Attested copy of the report may please be provided of Medical
Examination of the Officers and Officials from 1992 to 1998.
B) Attested copy of the report may please be provided of Police
Verification of the Officers and Officials from 1992 to 1998.
c) Attested copy of the report may please be provided of Educational
Qualification verified by various Boards, Universities of the Officers
and Officials from 1992 to 1998.
9. Whether any action on Qualification Certificates not verified from
respective Boards/Universities if received, action initiated if yes.
Attested copy of the same may be provided
10. Under which provision of Rule and employee/Govt Officials can get
salary from the consolidated fund of India without verification of
mandatory requirement of character, medical and educational
verification. Attested copy of the same may be provided.
11. Total strength of Delhi state Legal Services Authority under various
categories of officers, officials and number contract staff other than the
sanctioned strength. Attested copy of the same may be provided along
with the process followed in their engagement.
The PIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Delhi vide letter dated
07.09.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant, as received from Establishment
Wing. While most queries were answered on the basis of official records
available, information on the query number 8 was denied under Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Application and on query number 10 information was denied as it
was not directly related to the public authority.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, theAppellant filed a First
Appeal dated 19.09.2018.The FAA vide order dated 01.10.2018 (copy not
enclosed) upheld the reply of the PIO.
Hence the aggrieved Appellant approached the Commission with the instant
Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present and heard through video conference and reiterated the above contentions.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case it is noted that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and as permitted under the Act, was duly Page 2 of 4 provided from the available on records by the Respondent. Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case and it is not found feasible to adjudicate further in this case.
(2) CIC/DSLSA/A/2019/102433/HCDEL The Appellant filed an RTI application dated14.09.2018 seeking information on following 12 points:
1. Copy of the educational certificates submitted by the officers/officials who were appointed in this office from 1990 to 1995 be supplied as the concerned educational certificates fall within the domain/ambit of public documents as has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble CIC in the case titled Subhash Chand Tyagi, vs. CBSE (CIC/SA/A/2016/001451). Copy of the judgment is attached.
2. Details of the officials/officers who got retired from this organization during the period Jan 2014-Aug 2018.
3. Had their educational certificates been verified from the concerned board/university during their service tenure? The letters sent by this office and the replies received from the concerned board /university be supplied as the letters and the replies fall, within the ambit of official communication not connected with any employee in his private capacity.
4. Details of the employees who submitted their resignations from this office and the reasons for their resignation, copies thereof be supplied.
5. Whether any promotions were granted without holding a DPC meeting.
6. In how many cases the recruitment rules were relaxed at the time of promotion and if yes by whom, details of such cases be provided if any.
7. How many employee/official has been promoted on out of turn basis and in relaxation of notified RR's in effect on the date of promotion during the period of year 1995- 2003.
8. Copy of the minutes of DPC for the above mentioned period in which the promotion were considered and allowed.
9. Whether any provision in the FRSR provides for discretion for, relaxation of notified RR's if yes the copy of the provisions be supplied.
10. If there is no provision in the FRSR how the promotions were granted in relaxation of the notified RR's.
11. That the above sought information does not fall within the purview of section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. That the applicant has deposited the fee of Rs: 10/-(Ten) by means of paying order (38F 130810) which is annexed herewith the application.
12. That the applicant is ready and willing to pay any other charges for any such copies supplied as required under the Act.
The PIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Delhi vide letter dated 12.10.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant, as received from Establishment Page 3 of 4 Wing. While most queries were answered on the basis of official records available, information on the query number 1 was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Application.
Dissatisfied with the reply on points no 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 & 10, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.11.2018. The FAA vide a detailed speaking order dated 11.12.2018 observed that the information has been furnished on points no. 7, 9 & 10. He also advised the Appellant to ask for information regarding a specific officer/official and or specific category of employee on points no. 1 & 3, and specify the period for points no. 5 & 6, since after inspection of all relevant records, Appellant has already been supplied 206 pages on 03.10.2018, as per his request.
Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present and heard through video conference and reiterated the above contentions.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case it is noted that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and as permitted under the Act, was duly provided from the available records by the Respondent. Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case and in the given circumstances, the Commission is unable to ascertain the cause of dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the Respondent.
Before parting with the case, the respondent is advised to strictly adhere to the provisions laid down in the Act before providing/denying any information under the RTI Act.
With these observations, the above appeals are disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के .िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner(मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4