Central Information Commission
Smt.Savita Behal vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 16 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000078/11506
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000078
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Savita Behal
Flat No.135, Rashi Apartments
Plot No. 3, Sector-7, Dwarka
Delhi-110075
Respondent : Mr. Dasshrath Kumar
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director New Delhi Municipal Council Health Establishment Unit-2 Palika Kendra, Delhi RTI application filed on : 23/11/2009 PIO replied : 21/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 04/01/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 07/01/2011 Sl. Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. Provide information about posts in existence of Technical Two posts Supervisor in path labs NDMC on 28.2.2009 after superannuation of Technical Supervisor and on 28.2.2006 and how many are still in existence till date of application.
2. Specify the number of posts of Technical Supervisor after It is on regular basis.
superannuation of the aforementioned posts are on regular basis
3. Specify the number of posts of G Technical supervisors that are Same as ans to q.no.1 and copy of the lying vacant after superannuation of the above mentioned posts and RR can be provided on payment of Rs whether recruitment rules provide for promotion of Lab Technician 2 in feeder cadre to the post of Technical Supervisor and provide copy of the RRs
4. Specify who is the senior most Lab Technician in the feeder cadre. Does not fall under preview of RTI Act
5. Specify who is the next Lab Technician due for consideration for Same as above promotion as Technical Supervisor
6. Specify when the promotion of Lab Technician to the post of Same as above.
Supervisor start will in case it has not started and when did it start in case it has started.
First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory and incomplete Order of the FAA:
"PIO is directed to furnish complete information within 14 days."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory. Information provided that 'The case for filling up the vacant post of Technical supervisor is under process' is wrong. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mrs. Savita Behal;
Respondent : Mr. Dasshrath Kumar, PIO & Dy. Director;
The PIO has provided the information available as per records. One particular file has been lost as admitted by the PIO to the Appellant in an earlier application and also before the Court. The PIO has shown the evidence that they were trying to reconstruct the file and hence had informed the appellant in an earlier RTI that "the case for filling of the vacant post of technical supervisor is under process".
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided.
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 16 March 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)