Central Information Commission
Mr.Sushil Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 3 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000192/13820
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000192
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Sushil Kumar,
D-9, Shopping Centre,
Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Central Establishment Department
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
22nd Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 15/06/2010
PIO replied : 05/07/2010
Complaint received on : 26/04/2011
Information sought:-
1) Is it correct that the letter for want of 'No RDA/Police Case report & Currency of Punishment of the A.E'S (Civil)E.E's on CDC/LAC basis for the promotion for Executive Engineer for the post as regular basis from S.No 1 to 63.
2) At present how many post of the Executive Engineer (Civil) are vacant and existing? Provide all the details of the same.
3) What is the process/method adopted to call the No RDA/ Police Care report & currency of punishment of the candidates against the existing vacant post for promotion.
4) Is it correct that review DPC in compliance of the various court orders are in progress for the period w.e.f 1991 onwards? Give the names of the candidates of DPC and when the DPC will be completed?
5) In the eyes of law, is it correct to promote the junior candidate in place of senior eligible candidate who are available in the review DPC and non-compliance of the specific direction of the court within specific period as mentioned in the judgement.
6) Does the present proceeding of the promotion to the post of E.E not come in the periphery of the contempt of Court?
7) How many times D.P.C was carried out in between 01.02.02 to 01.05.10 for the regular post of A.E and when? Give the copy of the same along with the details of the meeting.
8) Was the complainant's name considered in the DPC carried out on 25.01.02?
9) Whether the No RDA/ Police Case report and currency of punishment was received before 25.01.2002 or not?
10) On what ground his name was omitted during the DPC carried out on 25.01.2002.
11) Is the department not competent to correct the error/mistake if any and who is responsible for this one?
12) Is the department not eligible to review the pending DPC case separately?
13) Provide the Information with respect to the position of the post of E.E Ground of the Complaint:
Only the photocopy of the postage register has been provided, without any specific and point wise information as asked by the complainant.
Reply from PIO:-
1. No RDA/Police case report & currency of Punishment to fill up the vacant post of EE ( C) on ad hoc/LAC.
2. 12 including anticipatory vacancy, as and when proposal will be mature, information will be provided.
3. According to the rule.
4. Review DPC for the post of AE(C) w.e.f 1991 onward is under process.
5. Is it not true?
6. The said information is not available on record.
7. DPCs to the post of AE(C) were held on 25.01.2002, 23.03.2006, 14.06.2007, 02.08.2007,
02.03.2009. Copies of the minutes of the same could be obtained after a deposit of a sum of Rs.40/-
8. Information available in the above said minutes of the DPCs
9. No information provided.
10. No information provided.
11. In this regard, the department acts in accordance with the provisions/ directions issued by the GOI/DOP&T/ Corporation.
12. As above
13. The information sought by the complainant is very bulky and voluminous. He can inspect the relevant file on any working day prior taking convenient date and time from the officers of CED, so that the requisite information can be supplied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the PIO has given information on most of the queries. However, it appears that the information regarding query- 9 & 10 should have been provided based on the records available.
Decision:
The complaint is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on queries 9 & 10 to the Complainant before 20 August 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 03 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SS)