Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Gulshan vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 14 September, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीयसच
                                                  ू नाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                     बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSSSB/A/2021/662456-UM

Ms. Gulshan




                                                                      ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम



CPIO,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KARKARDOOMA,
{NEAR RAILWAY RESERVATION CENTER} DELHI-110092



                                                                      प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing      :              13.09.2022
Date of Decision     :              14.09.2022

Date of RTI application                                              02.10.2021
CPIO's response                                                      Not on record
Date of the First Appeal                                             07.11.2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                 Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                 Nil

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr Punit Aggarwal S O Present in Person The Appellant remained absent during the hearing.

The respondent submitted that the marks before normalisation are not disclosed to the candidates as per the policy of DSSSB. Further on point no 2 the marks after the normalisation are the same as the result of the candidate which was already informed to the candidate in this case. On point no 3 the information has been furnished vide letter dated 16.03.2022, he said.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission directs the CPIO's to furnish a complete, point wise information to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

Further the Commission taking a serious view of the conduct of the CPIO for not furnishing any reply within the time frame, directs him to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining the reason, along with the comments of the concerned FAA, both by post and by uploading to http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 14.09.2022 Page 3 of 3