Central Information Commission
Sudhir Kashyap vs Department Of Urban Development on 3 February, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/122865
CIC/DOURD/A/2018/125056
Shri Sudhir Kashyap ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Director (Admn), DUSIB,
Civil Line, Delhi ...प्रनतवादीगण
Through: Sh. Manoj Jain - Dy. Director /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 31.01.2020
Date of Decision : 03.02.2020
lnformation Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
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
No. on
122865 04.09.2017 29.09.2017 10.11.2017 01.03.2018
125056 04.09.2017 29.09.2017 10.11.2017 01.03.2018
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/122865
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2017 seeking information on 3
points, as follows:
(A) Please give details for Direct Degree SC/ST official seats considered with name.
(B) Please provide 40 Points Vacancy based roster from JE to AE, AE to EE vide Office
Order No. (1) GA/1120/17/96/Pt.file/Admn/D-318 on dated 02.11.2016 (2)
GA/1190/4/Admn./2016/D-283 dated 31.8.2017 (3) GA/1190/4/Admn./
2016/D-284 dated 31.8.2017 (4) 17.02.1989 and in Electrical Wing 13 points
post based roaster w.e.f. 01.07.1995 and the basis of which the promotions
without giving representation to Schedule Caste direct & subsequent degree
holders Candidate.
(C) The Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate No. 2368 of 2011, Judgment date
09.02.2017, is part of G.O.I. instruction, or does it needs D.O.P.T. approval or
need based the incumbent has to approach Supreme Court for justice as denied
in this context.
[Queries reproduced verbatim]
PIO/Dy. Director (Admn), vide letter dated 29.09.2017 furnished point wise
reply to the Appellant.
Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 10.11.2017. FAA vide order dated 01.03.2018 directed the PIO(Admn.)
to provide the reply/information afresh within 30 days from the date of order
to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant
approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOURD/A/2018/125056
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2017 seeking information on 3
points;
a) For SC/ST candidates 40 point vacancy based roster has been made
functional or not please specify, how many SC/ST have been official placed at
SC/ST roaster point, please give list year wise details.
(b) In the Office Order issued as GA/1190/4/Admn./2016/D-284 dated
31.8.2017:-
i) When the vacancy roaster was truncated & how many candidates as per said
Office Order cover in that and after termination of vacancy based roaster, when
was the new 13 point post based roaster was implemented in D.U.S.I.B. vide this
Office Order. Please provide the Roaster position name wise & year wise.
(c) The Office Order No. GA/1190/4/Admn./2016/D-284 dated, 31.8.2017 do
not have name of 03 JE (C) & some names have been repeated. Please specify
whether corrected Office Order in place of the Office Order No.
GA/1190/4/Admn./2016/D-284 dated 31.8.2017 have been issued if not then
errors pointed out may please be specified for not consideration & please provide
agenda, minutes, copy of noting side.
[Queries reproduced verbatim]
PIO/Dy. Director (Admn), vide letter dated 29.09.2017 informed the Appellant
that he may inspect the relevant file on any working day in office hours on
prior intimation. He was informed that after inspection, certified copies of the
required documents will be provided on payment of prescribed fee as per RTI
Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 10.11.2017. FAA vide order dated 01.03.2018 directed the PIO (Admn.)
to provide the reply/information afresh within 30 days from the date of order
to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA order, Appellant
approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submission dated 10.12.2019 has been received from PIO/Dy. Director (Admn), DUSIB which reveals that in compliance of the FAO dated 01.03.2018, inspection had been granted to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.06.2018.
Page 2 of 3Both parties are present for hearing and Appellant admits that he was granted inspection of records pursuant to the FAA's order, but he did not find the relevant documents even on inspection of the records. Respondent admits that some names were initially missing in the list compiled earlier but now the documents have been completed and the same can be provided to the Appellant for inspection.
Decision:
It is noted that despite inspection of records, provided by the respondents pursuant to the FAA's order, the Appellant is not satisfied. On enquiring from the Appellant during the course of hearing, it is learnt that he seeks a fresh adjudication of the case/s by the FAA. In terms of the prayer of the appellant, the appeals are hereby remanded to FAA for proper implementation of the earlier order passed by the FAA on 01.03.2018 and a compliance report in this regard should be submitted before the Commission by 20.03.2020.
The appeals are disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3