Central Information Commission
Dr. Deepak Chanda vs Registrar General Of India, New Delhi on 10 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2008/01266 dated 22.4.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Name of the Appellant : Dr. Deepak Chanda
Name of the Public Authority : Registrar General of India, New Delhi
BACKGROUND:
Dr Deepak Chanda, the appellant vide his RTI application dated 22.4.2008 sought certain information regarding denial of promotion to him to the post of Deputy Director(EDP) and matters connected therewith. Not satisfied with the reply of CPIO dated dated 23.5.2008 the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded through letter dated 3.7.2008. Aggrieved with the replies of CPIO and the FAA, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission.
2. The matter was heard on 10.11.2009.
3. The appellant was present.
4. Ms. Preeti Srivastav, DS and Ms. Sadhana Khanna, US represented the respondent.
5. During the hearing the appellant mentioned that he had not been given replies to most of his queries whereas the respondent on the other hand stated that information had been given o him in respect of all the points.
DECISION:
6. The respondent are directed to give the appellant a clear response on vacancy position as on 1.1.2007 on Point No.4.1 of the RTI application. The respondent are also directed to give a report on action taken on the appellant's representation dated 28.2.2008 and subsequent reminder dated 17.3.2008 including file noting. The respondent will also provide the relevant rules etc. for consideration of character rolls for promotion to the post of DD(EDP), including the number of character rolls to be considered and the number of character rolls actually considered by the DPCheld for giving promotions. Rules related to communication of adverse character rolls may also be provided including copies of communication if any, made to the appellant. The respondent are also directed to inform the appellant the query made on Point No.4.6 to which CPIO has merely replied that the question is not clear. The reasons for giving ad-hoc promotion in the year 2007-08 while regular promotional vacancies existed since the year 2006-07 has to be given to the appellant. Under Section 4(i)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 the public authority is required to give reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
7. The respondent are directed to comply with the above directions within 15 days of receipt of this order. Information/documents are to be given free of cost.
8. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission. Copies of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 10.12.2009 Authenticated true copy:
(P.C.Purkait) SO & Asst. Registrar Copy to:
1. Central Public Information Officer Smt. Sadhna Khanna, CPIO, Bharat Sarkar, Govt. of India, Grih Mantralaya, Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General , India 2/A,Man Singh Road, New Delhi-110011
2. Appellate Authority Smt. Preeti Srivastava, Deputy Secretary, Appellate Authority, Office of the Registrar General, India, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2/A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi-110011
3. Sh. Deepak Chanda, Ex-Assisstant Director, (EDP) C-2/1059 (Ground Floor), Palam Vihar, Gurgaon-122017, Haryana