Central Information Commission
Mr. Ratan Babu vs Central Institute Of Hindi, Agra on 30 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000010/2506
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000010
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ratan Babu
OfficeAsstt.Corsepondence
Department,Kendriya Hindi Sansthan,
Agra (U.P.)
Respondent : Mr. Chanderkant Tripathi
Public Information Officer Central Institute of Hindi, Agra Ministry of HRD, Hindi Sansthan Marg, Agara -282005. (U.P.) RTI application filed on : 24/09/2008 PIO's Reply : 23/10/2008 First Appeal filed on : 20/11/2008 First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned Second Appeal filed on : 30/12/2008 The appellant had asked information from PIO, Central Institute of Hindi, Agra in respect of Office Superintendent.
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Date, from post of office On 01/10/2001.
superintendent is vacant.
2. After Mr. Amarnath Jain how After Mr. Amarnath Jain Ms.Bindu many were promoted to Office Bahuguna, Mr. Manmod Saxena and Superintendent? Were they Mr. Hukam Singh were promoted to B.Com? OS. They were not B.Com.
3. When Mr. Rameshwar Singh was On 5/10/2008 he was promoted and appointed as office superintendent B.Com is not mandatory for OS who on 5/10/2008 why his degree were promoted earlier. B.Com is (B.Com) was not considered. required for OS now(Internal Auditor).
4. Do internal auditors have Internal Auditor are not illegible for OS eligibilities to join as office as per current selection rules. superintendent?
5. Why B.Com degree was asked Even after establishment of internal only when my promotion was due? audit department they were unable to Is it because I am Dalit? complete works hence it was decided to ask B.Com for OS.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Ratan Babu Respondent: Mr. Chanderkant Tripathi PIO All the information as per records has been furnished to the appellant. The appellant contends it shows that injustice has been done to him and no resaon is given for this. Right to Information cannot get an answer for this unless there are no records for this. The PIO has the DPC report which mentions why the appellant has not been promoted. The PIO is directed to give the copy to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been supplied to the appellant and the copy of the DPC report has been given before the Commission.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 30th March 2009 (In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)