Central Information Commission
Shri Naveen Rawal vs High Court Of Delhi on 9 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01294 dated 15.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Naveen Rawal
Respondent - High Court of Delhi
Facts:
By an application of 15.10.06 assigned ID No. 89 Shri Naveen Rawal of East Uttam Nagar, Delhi applied to the PIO, Jt. Registrar (Estt) Delhi High Court, for the following information:
"(a) How many candidates have been appointed to the post of Private Secretary?
(b) How many marks have been secured by these candidates in the written test of English language held on 30.4.2006? Also give the information as to how many mistakes have been committed by these candidate sin the Stenography Examination? Kindly give the details in respect of each candidate, name-wise and mark-wise, mistake-wise.
(c) What are the criteria followed during the interview to candidate for the post?
(d) What are the criteria followed by the Delhi High Court while selecting candidates who are not currently employed in the pay scale applicable for being appointed as PS? In which pay-scales the candidates were serving, who have been given appointment?
(e) Is the candidate having Degree of LLB given preference over the other candidates during interview?
(f) How many candidates were Law Graduates who have been appointed as Personal Secretary? Kindly give the list of names.
(g) How many candidates were serving in the Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi and the courts below i.e. District Courts, Tribunals, etc who have been selected for the post of 1 Private Secretary? Kindly furnish the names along with their pay-scales in which they were serving in this office.
(h) Information on point (b) may also be given in respect of the undersigned."
To this he received a response from Shri A. K. Mahajan, Jt. Registrar (Estt) dated 7.11.06 as below:
"The following partly information is being enclosed:-
(Point a) 22 candidates have been appointed to the post of Private Secretary.
(Point d) Criteria are as under:-
Graduate with five years service as Stenographer in any Government Department/ Public Undertaking and possessing a speed of not less that 120 words as per minute in English shorthand and typing speed of 45 words per minute on Computer with proficiency in Computer.
From the above, it is clear that only five years service, as stenographer is required.
The remaining information about the other aspects cannot be supplied due to the following reason:-
(i) The information sought under items b, c and e to h can not be provided in terms of rules 5 (c) of Delhi High Court (Right to Information) rules, 2006."
Aggrieved by this decision Shri Naveen Rawal moved his first appeal on 8.12.06 before the Registrar (Estt) Delhi High Court, specifically citing a recent decision of this Commission directing the UPSC that marks obtained by students in the IAS Preliminary Exam should be divulged to them. Upon this first Appellate Authority Shri Kalam Singh in his order of January 8, 2007 has directed as follows:
"Public Information Officer had supplied the information of items (a) and (d) to the appellant but did not supply the information sought for as per items (b), (c) and (e) to (h) in view of Rule 5(c) of the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) rules, 2006 which reads as under:2
(c) Any information affecting the confidentiality of examination conducted by Delhi High Court including Delhi Judicial Service and Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the question of confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent Authority whose decision shall be final.
Records of the Public Information Officer were summoned. A perusal of the record shows that the competent authority had declined to disclose the marks.
In view of Rule 5(c), the appeal is without merit and hence rejected."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal as below:
"It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to direct the Respondent to disclose the information as sought in terms of Para 4 (E) of the appeal, to the appellant."
The parties appeared before us on 9.1.09. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Naval Rawal Respondents Shri Sunil Kukreja, APIO, DHC Sh. Sudhir Sachdeva, Sr. Judicial Asstt., DHC Shri Sunil Kukreja, APIO DHC submitted that as per advice of this Commission, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is reviewing Rules 4(4) & 5 of Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006. in light of this the information sought by appellant Shri Naveen Rawal is being reconsidered.
DECISION NOTICE Under the above circumstances, because the High Court of Delhi has agreed to review the relevant rules, this appeal is being remanded to Shri Kalam Singh, FAA, High Court of Delhi for disposal after reviewing application of the rules, within twenty working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice, under intimation to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar of this Commission.3
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner
9.1.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 9.1.2009 4