Central Information Commission
Dr. J. L. Chaudhary vs Health And Family Welfare Department on 14 August, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DHFWF/A/2017/178477/HAFWD
Dr. J L Chaudhary ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO, Chief District Medical Officer(N/E), Director of
Health Services, GNCTD, North East District, A-14, G-
1, DDA Flats, Dilshad Garden, Delhi ...प्रनतवादी /Respondent
Through: Dr. Sandeep Gautam - ACDMO, Dr.
Prashant- DFW
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2019
Date of Decision : 13.08.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.06.2017
PIO replied on : 31.07.2017
First Appeal filed on : 16.08.2017
First Appellate Order on : Not on record (Reply of 1st Appeal is
available (25.10.2017)).
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.11.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant vide RTI application dated 28.06.2017 seeking information on 13 points as under:-
1. Whether training under amendment rule PC&PNDT Act GSR 14 (E) dated 09.01.2014 have status of DMC recognized qualification?
2. What was your question before DMC for verification of ONE YEAR PG DIPLOMA IN ULTRASONOGRAPHY, submitted on 17.09.2014 for registration of Devansh ultrasound centre?
3. Whether you have asked from Annamalai University that 1 year PG diploma in ultrasonography covers the basic requisite of training protocol of amendment rule dated 09.01.2014?
4. Please provide the logics/order that DNB qualification covers the training protocol of amendment rule dated 17.09.2014.
Page 1 of 35. Whether GOI have given direction for taking decision on application within 70 days?
6. Whether you have neglected the time protocol for decision on application submitted on 17.09.2017 for registration of DEVANSH ULTRASOUND CENTRE?
7. Whether you have asked to applicant to prove that submitted 1 year PG diploma in health science in ultrasonography covers the training protocol of new amendment rule dated 09.01.2014?
8. Whether applicant had submitted mark sheet of 1 year PG diploma in health science in ultrasonography along with list of net print of MCI/DMC recognized institution for MD, DMRD in Radio diagnosis & MD, DGO in gynaecology & obstetric for regular course.
9. Whether produced papers decide that Rajah Muthaih Medical College is medical faculty of Annamalai University & have competent status for conducting training under new amendment rule dated 09.01.2014?
10. Do you agree that Annamalai University have not status for training protocol under new amendment rule dated 09.01.2014?
11. Whether you have banned from practice in your district since the date of DMC expired registration?
12. Is there any survey report to prove for violation of PNDT Act is not done by MD, DMRD trained under new amendment rule?
13. Please provide following information of your district:-
(a) Name & address of registered ultrasound centre.
(b) Date of registration.
(c) Name & Qualification of ultrasonologist.
(d) Expiry date of DMC registration of ultrasonologist.
PIO/O/o the Chief District Medical Officer, North East District, Directorate of Health Services, Dilshad Garden, Delhi provided point-wise information vide letter No. F.16/77/2017/DHS/NE/Estt./RTI-II/999-1000 dated 31.07.2017.
Dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed the First Appeal on 16.08.2017. No copy of FAA's order has been submitted with the Second Appeal. However, a copy of communication dated 25.10.2017 from the Chief District Medical Officer (North East District), Directorate of Health Services, Dilshad Garden, Delhi has been placed on record which provides information against the queries number 3,5,6,7 and 11 of the RTI query, in terms of FAA's order dated 17.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the reply, alleging it to be vague, the appellant approached the Commission with the Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant states that he has not received the desired information from the Respondent, though he has been seeking answers to his queries for quite sometime. In the course of averments during hearing, it transpired that the appellant had filed another RTI application dated 08.12.2015 on the same subject which had been duly adjudicated by a predecessor bench of this Commission vide order dated 06.04.2017 in case no.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001316. The respondent has further submitted an order dated 17.10.2017 whereby the FAA had adjudicated the First Appeal and directed the PIO to provide specific reply against queries number 3,5,6,7 and
11. Decision In the light of the aforementioned facts of the case, it is noted that respondents have provided replies repeatedly, but the appellant who is aggrieved by the rejection of his medical examination centre, is not satisfied. Hence, the Respondent/PIO Sh. Sandeep Gautam is hereby directed to provide a status report about rejection of the centre of the appellant duly supported by clear reason/s for the rejection by 13.09.2019.
The appeal is thus disposed off with these directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3