Central Information Commission
Mukesh Kumar Gond vs Directorate Of Education on 18 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2023/619486
Mukesh Kumar Gond .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Education,
RTI Cell, Room No. 220,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024
Date of Decision : 15.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 13.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.04.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.04.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2023 seeking the following information:
1. In ST category, how many candidates have joined till now?
2. In ST category, how many candidates has been resigned after joining?
3. In ST category, out of 86, only 80 candidates are in the main list but what about other 6 candidates?
4. In ST category, how many seats for ST-PH-OH?Page 1 of 5
5. How many seats were backlog and fresh seats in PH category?
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.03.2023 stating as under:
With reference to your application filed under R.T.I Act, 2005 and received in this office through online on dated 06.02.2023, it is stated that the same was forwarded to DDE (DR Cell (E-IV) and E-IV Branch) i.e. the most closely related branch vide this office letter dated 08.02.2023.
The reply received from SO (DR Cell (E-IV) Branch) vide its letter no. 209 on dated 03.03.2023 is being forwarded to you (Copy enclosed).
However, it is stated that any type of clarification does not cover under the definition of information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence need not be replied.
1. As per record provided by custodian of the dealing seat, 69 candidates of ST category have joined till date under post code 91/20.
2-5. Matter does not pertain to DRC E-IV Branch. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.04.2023. held as under.
"The record was called for and perused. Ongoing through the information sought in the said RTI, it is observed that the PIO (HQ) had appropriately forwarded the RTI application to concerned branch i.e., E- IV Branch and DR Cell (E-IV) for providing information. DR Cell (E-IV branch) provided the information which was further forwarded to the appellant by PIO (HQ) vide letter dated 13.03.2023 through online RTI portal. However, DR Cell (E-IV Branch) is directed to provide revised reply for Q.No. 2 and 3 of the RTI application. E-IV Branch is also directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.Page 2 of 5
Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, SO & APIO, Shri Samai Singh, SO, Shri Amit Bansal, ASO, Shri A K Bhardwaj, SO and Shri Pardeep, Senior Assistant present in person.
The Commission noted during the hearing that the Registry has inadvertently sent the hearing notice to the Appellant on a wrong address. However, the Commission tried calling the Appellant on his given mobile number at the given time but was unable to connect. The Commission, therefore, directs the Respondent to telephonically inform the Appellant about the hearing proceedings.
The Respondent, now at the stage of second appeal, submitted their revised reply, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
The PIO, Establishment -IV Branch vide letter dated 05.07.2024 has given following reply:
"As per MIS, 69 ST category candidates have joined at the post of TGT Computer Science under Post Code No. 91/20 as on 19.04.2023.
1. As per MIS, No ST category TGT Computer Science under Post Code No. 91/20 has resigned as on 19.04.2023.
2. Does not pertain to this Branch. However, information may be obtained from DRC-E-IV.
3. Advertisement No. 04/20 is already available in public domain. Further, the reservation for Physically Handicapped persons is given as per Govt.
of India's instructions, which is only to be given horizontally.
4. The applicant was directed to report in E-IV Branch, Directorate of Education on 04/05/2023, 11.00 A.M. for inspection of the concerned record. But, he did not report.
5. Further, Backlog of Persons with Disability Vacancies for the Post of TGT Computer Science was 31 and fresh Vacancies were 23"
The PIO, DR Cell, Establishment -IV Branch vide letter dated 10.07.2024 has given following reply:Page 3 of 5
"01) In ST Category, 71 candidates joined till now.
02) Process of resignation is dealt by E-IV main Branch.
03) Dossiers of only 80 ST candidates were received from DSSSB through main result instead of 86.
04) ST-PH-OH Dossiers were not received from DSSSB.
05) This Branch only deals with appointments on the basis of details of Selected candidates sent by DSSSB Vacancy & Backlog and fresh seats related matters are dealt by E-IV Administration Branch"
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that said revised reply has not been shared yet with the Appellant. Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that till date complete information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that information as per their record has already been provided to the Appellant.
The Respondent, now at the stage of second appeal, the Respondent has placed on record a point-wise reply in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application.
Further, the said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application which is not yet shared with the Appellant. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of their written submissions/revised reply to the Appellant, through speed post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission observes that there is a substantial delay in complying with the directions of the FAA within the time specified. It is only at the stage of second appeal, the Respondent has placed on the record their revised reply. In Page 4 of 5 view of this, the Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that timelines given should be strictly adhered to so as to avoid penal provisions.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education, RTI Cell, Room No. 220, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)