Central Information Commission
Phool Chand vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 16 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: (Total 9 cases)
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/102415
CIC/NDMCN/A/2024/102458
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/102993
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/105387
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/105385
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108964
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108963
CIC/PGCOM/A/2024/107443
CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/107402
Phool Chand .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
CED-II, Palika Kendra,
New Delhi - 110001
2. PIO,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Education Department,
Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001
3. PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Central Establishment Department,
E-Block, 22nd Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002
Page 1 of 29
4. PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Education Department-HQ,
15th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002
5. PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Hospital Administration (HQ),
E-Block, 18th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002
6. PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Horticulture Department (HQ),
16th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002
7. PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Education Department, Shahdara
(South) Zone, 419, Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi - 110092
8. PIO,
Public Grievance Commission,
M Block, Vikas Bhawan,
I P Estate, New Delhi - 110002
9. PIO,
Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board, FC - 18,
Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110092 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2025
Date of Decision : 15.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
decision through common order as these are based on similar RTI
applications of the same appellant on the identical issues.
Page 2 of 29
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/102415
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 16.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Post wise total candidates appointed for more than 45 days on or after 01.01.2018 on contract bases from open market and through DSSSB separately indicating reserved candidates.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM base on that ST are appointed through DSSSB and also from01.01.2018 to date from Para-1 above.
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 27.10.2022 sent Chairman by Speed Post.
4. Give details of proposal submitted based on CIC/NDMCN/A/112366- UM dated 31.10.2022 in r/o Ankit Kumar for considering sympathetically for appointment. If so, give details, if not give base or ground for not taking action on CIC advice.
5. Details of action taken as per DOPT O.M. dated 18.12.12 (copy enclosed) for ST and action is also action is also to be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 26.7.2023."
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.11.2023 stating as under:
"1. On Contract-Nil Regular JEs-92 UR 44 SC 07 ST 14 OBC 27 OH Nil EWS Nil Page 3 of 29 Regular Mason-01 UR Nil SC 01 ST Nil OBC Nil OH Nil EWS Nil Regular Draftman-17 UR 03 SC 06 ST 02 OBC 05 OH 01 EWS Nil 2 to 5. Does not pertain"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2024/102458 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 14.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 24.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2024 Information sought:
4. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Post wise total candidates appointed for more than 45 days on or after 01.01.2018 on contract bases from open market and through DSSSB separately indicating reserved candidates.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM base on that ST are appointed through DSSSB and also from01.01.2018 to date from Para-1 above.Page 4 of 29
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 27.10.2022 sent Chairman by Speed Post.
4. Give details of proposal submitted based on CIC/NDMCN/A/112366- UM dated 31.10.2022 in r/o Ankit Kumar for considering sympathetically for appointment. If so, give details, if not give base or ground for not taking action on CIC advice.
5. Details of action taken as per DOPT O.M. dated 18.12.12 (copy enclosed) for ST and action is also action is also to be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 26.7.2023."
5. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.11.2023 stating as under:
"1. As far as candidates appointed for more than 45 days is concerned on contract basis no new appointments on or after 01.01.2018 were made. However, contractual teachers engaged previously are still being engaged time to time as per their terms and conditions of contract. As far as appointments made through DSSSB separately indicating reserved candidates is concerned the data is as under:-
Assis. SC ST OBC EWS UR
Teacher
PH - - 01 - 03
UR 16 07 15 35 41
Assistant Teacher (Urdu)
- - 7 - 13
2. The information is already available in Public domain if exists.
3. Does not pertain to Education Department.
4. Does not pertain to Education Department.
5. Does not pertain to Education Department."
6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/102993 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 29.11.2023
Page 5 of 29
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.01.2024 Information sought:
7. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please provide following information/details under RTI Act-2005 from all MCDs Departments:-
1. Post wise total numbers of candidates appointed on contract bases for more than 45 days on or after 1.1.2016 and also on regular bases from general, SC, ST & Physically Handicapped from open market and through DSSSB.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM under that reservation is being given to STs on all kinds category/class appointments and from Para-1 above on or after 1.1.2016 to date.
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 26.10.22 & 21-9-23 sent to Commissioner by Speed Post.
4. Details of action being taken or will be taken based on DOPT O.M dated 18.12.2012 and as per Department for the Welfare of SCST/OBC/Mino. letter dated 10.12.10 (copies enclosed)- copies provided several times.
5. Give details of action will be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 27.6.2023 (copy enclosed) by all MCDs Departments- inform after taking action to circulate it.
6. Give details of action taken based on MCD circular No. HC/RTI/Engg.(HQ) SDMC/289 dated 1.12.2016 by all Departments."
8. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:
"1. ➤ In Group 'A' like Education, Technical Cadre (Except Law, P&S & P&l) 11 No's retired employees are working as consultant and 02 Architect, 02 Consultant transport and 891 Data Entry Operators are working in contract basis hired from different agencies. ➤ SC-35, ST-24, PH-05 candidates nominated to the post of JSA by DSSSB under post code 51/13. SC-47, ST-20, PH-23 candidates nominated to the post of JSA by DSSSB under post code 44/21.Page 6 of 29
➤ 178 JSA working on contract basis and 08 retired employees (JSA, SSA & ASO) working as consultant on contract basis too.
2. No reservation is applicable in the appointment of consultant.
3. No such information is available in this department.
4. As per letter, Gol dated 18.12.2012, it is informed that there is no proposal under consideration of this department to enhance the percentage of reservation of SC for 15% to 17%. However, question is not clear.
5. No enclosure has been attached.
6. No such, information is available in this department. As the letter issued by erstwhile South DMC has been unified on 18.05.2022,"
9. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.12.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/105387 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 14.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 05.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.02.2024 Information sought:
10.The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please provide following information/details under RTI Act-2005 from all MCDs Departments:-
1. Post wise total numbers of candidates appointed on contract bases for more than 45 days on or after 1.1.2016 and also on regular bases from general, SC, ST & Physically Handicapped from open market and through DSSSB.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM under that reservation is being given to STs on all kinds category/class appointments and from Para-1 above on or after 1.1.2016 to date.Page 7 of 29
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 26.10.22 & 21-9-23 sent to Commissioner by Speed Post.
4. Details of action being taken or will be taken based on DOPT O.M dated 18.12.2012 and as per Department for the Welfare of SCST/OBC/Mino. letter dated 10.12.10 (copies enclosed)- copies provided several times.
5. Give details of action will be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 27.6.2023 (copy enclosed) by all MCDs Departments- inform after taking action to circulate it.
6. Give details of action taken based on MCD circular No. HC/RTI/Engg.(HQ) SDMC/289 dated 1.12.2016 by all Departments."
11.The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.11.2023 stating as under:
"3. DoPT OM in reference are followed in MCD.
4. As above Question no. 1.
6. As above Rest of question does not pertain to Admn. Branch."
12.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.01.2024, held as under.
"The appeal is heard at length and found that reply of question no.1,2, 5 with respect to teachers is yet to be received. It has been seen from the records that RTI Application, ID 504 had been forwarded to Admin Branch, Class-IV, and TRC Branch. The reply has been received from Class-IV and Admn. Branch, PIO/TRC Branch is hereby directed to provide the reply of RTI ID Application no. 504 within 07 working days. Copy of the RTI is enclosed."
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/105385 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 07.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 13.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.02.2024 Information sought:
13.The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 8 of 29"Please provide following information/details under RTI Act-2005 from all MCDs Departments:-
1. Post wise total numbers of candidates appointed on contract bases for more than 45 days on or after 1.1.2016 and also on regular bases from general, SC, ST & Physically Handicapped from open market and through DSSSB.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM under that reservation is being given to STs on all kinds category/class appointments and from Para-1 above on or after 1.1.2016 to date.
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 26.10.22 & 21-9-23 sent to Commissioner by Speed Post.
4. Details of action being taken or will be taken based on DOPT O.M dated 18.12.2012 and as per Department for the Welfare of SCST/OBC/Mino. letter dated 10.12.10 (copies enclosed)- copies provided several times.
5. Give details of action will be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 27.6.2023 (copy enclosed) by all MCDs Departments- inform after taking action to circulate it.
6. Give details of action taken based on MCD circular No. HC/RTI/Engg.(HQ) SDMC/289 dated 1.12.2016 by all Departments."
14.The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.12.2023 stating as under:
"1 अनुबंध के आधार पर/ ननयमित आधार पर दिनाक 1/1/16 से ननयुक्त ककया गया कुल संख्या SC-301 ST-43 PH-10 Total-354 2 प्रशन का उत्तर 1 के अनुसार 3 विभाग से संबन्धधत नही है।
4 उपरोकतानुसार 5 उपरोकतानुसार 6 उपरोकतानुसार"
15.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 30.01.2024, held as under.
Page 9 of 29"The appeal is heard at length and found that reply of question no.1,2, 5 with respect to teachers is yet to be received. It has been seen from the records that RTI Application, ID 504 had been forwarded to Admin Branch, Class-IV, and TRC Branch. The reply has been received from Class-IV and Admn. Branch, PIO/TRC Branch is hereby directed to provide the reply of RTI ID Application no. 504 within 07 working days. Copy of the RTI is enclosed."
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108964 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 07.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 13.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.03.2024 Information sought:
16.The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please provide following information/details under RTI Act-2005 from all MCDs Departments:-
1. Post wise total numbers of candidates appointed on contract bases for more than 45 days on or after 1.1.2016 and also on regular bases from general, SC, ST & Physically Handicapped from open market and through DSSSB.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM under that reservation is being given to STs on all kinds category/class appointments and from Para-1 above on or after 1.1.2016 to date.
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 26.10.22 & 21-9-23 sent to Commissioner by Speed Post.
4. Details of action being taken or will be taken based on DOPT O.M dated 18.12.2012 and as per Department for the Welfare of SCST/OBC/Mino. letter dated 10.12.10 (copies enclosed)- copies provided several times.
5. Give details of action will be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 27.6.2023 (copy enclosed) by all MCDs Departments- inform after taking action to circulate it.Page 10 of 29
6. Give details of action taken based on MCD circular No. HC/RTI/Engg.(HQ) SDMC/289 dated 1.12.2016 by all Departments."
17.The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.12.2023 stating as under:
"1. The detail are as:
Mali All appointments were made against Welfare Measure (Cont) Scheme and almost all the applicants/dependents of diseased regular employees were given appointment under the scheme.
SO SC-03 ST-02@ Gen-14 OBC-11
(Cont)
ADH SC-01 ST-Nil Gen-04 OBC-Nil
(Cont)
(@-both outside from Delhi Jurisdiction.)
2. All the orders/OM of DOPT is readily available on the website of DOPT and accordingly department is adhering.
3. No such information is available in this department.
4. It is informed that there is no proposal under consideration of this department to enhance the percentage of reservation of SC from 15% to 17%.
5. No enclosure has been found attached.
6. No such information is available in this department as the letter mentioned in your application is issued by erstwhile SDMC, which has been unified on 18.05.2022."
18.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108963 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 25.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.03.2024
Page 11 of 29
Information sought:
19.The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please provide following information/details under RTI Act-2005 from all MCDs Departments:-
1. Post wise total numbers of candidates appointed on contract bases for more than 45 days on or after 1.1.2016 and also on regular bases from general, SC, ST & Physically Handicapped from open market and through DSSSB.
2. Give DOPT Order/OM under that reservation is being given to STs on all kinds category/class appointments and from Para-1 above on or after 1.1.2016 to date.
3. Give details of action taken based on letter No. S/GEN/2022 dated 26.10.22 & 21-9-23 sent to Commissioner by Speed Post.
4. Details of action being taken or will be taken based on DOPT O.M dated 18.12.2012 and as per Department for the Welfare of SCST/OBC/Mino. letter dated 10.12.10 (copies enclosed)- copies provided several times.
5. Give details of action will be taken as per M/o. Tribal Affairs letter dated 27.6.2023 (copy enclosed) by all MCDs Departments- inform after taking action to circulate it.
6. Give details of action taken based on MCD circular No. HC/RTI/Engg.(HQ) SDMC/289 dated 1.12.2016 by all Departments."
20.The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.01.2024 stating as under:
"1. No compile data is available in desired form.
2. Matter pertains to Education department MCD.
3. Please provide copy of suggested report for appropriate reply, if pertains to education department shahdara south zone.
4. Matter pertains to MCD(HQ)
5. As above
6. Point doesn't pertain to this department."
21.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.01.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
Page 12 of 29CIC/PGCOM/A/2024/107443 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 21.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 28.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.02.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.03.2024 Information sought:
22.The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Provide details of action taken based on Service Department, Branch IV letter No.19(09)/2015/S.IV/535 dated 31.03.2023 addressed to the Dy. Secretary (CPGRAMS).
2. Give details of action taken based on our Association letter No. S/GEN/2023 dated 20.4.2023 addressed to Dy. Secretary (CPGRAMS). Sent by Speed Post.
3. Give details of action taken on our Association letter No. S/GEN/2023/121 dated 27.6.2023 based on letter of M/o. Tribal Affairs. Sent by Speed Post."
23.The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.12.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to your RTI application received in this Commission on dated 28.11.2023. Pointwise reply as received from CPGRAM branch is enclosed.
Encl. is as under:
1. Vide PGC letter no. F.8(8)/PGC/CPGRAMS/2023/268 dated 13/04/2023, the letter No. 19(09)/2015/S.IV/535 dated 31/03/2023 of Dy. Secretary (Services) was forwarded to Sh. Phool Chand for information wherein it was informed by Services Department that in service matters, including reservation, the Delhi Govt., being Union Territory/Nation Capital Territory, follows the OMs/instructions etc. issued by Govt. of India from time to time. Further, regarding the points mentioned/raised by the applicant in his letter dated 28/10/2022, Services Department, Government of NCT if Delhi has apprised the applicant about the action taken/factual position on the said matters on many occasions by way of replies to RTIs/Representations/CIC Orders etc..Page 13 of 29
2. Association letter no. S/GEN/2023 dated 20/04/2023 was forwarded to Department for Welfare of SC/ST and Services Department vide letter no. F.8(8)/PGC/CPGRAMS/2022/1047-49 dated 16/05/2023 with a copy to Sh. Phool Chand for his information.
3. Association letter no. S/GEN/2023/121 dated 27/09/2023 (date perhaps wrongly mentioned in RTI is 27/06/2023) was filed since the factual status/action taken have already been communicated to the applicant as mentioned in point no. 1 above and also no directions can be issued to M/o Tribal Affairs, GOI in such policy matters by this branch.
Moreover the reply given by Ministry of Tribal Affairs dated 26/07/2023 under RTI is also appealable as per provisions of Act and PGC is not the Appellate Authority for Ministry of Tribal Affairs, GOI."
CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/107402 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 12.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 04.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.02.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.03.2024 Information sought:
24.The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 04.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Please provide following information/details under RTI Act-2005 on following points by DSSSB:-
1. Details mentioned and action taken by DSSSB based on Circular No. 16(73)/97-SII/965 dated 27.8.2004 (copy enclosed) addressed to the Chairman, DSSSB.
2. Details mentioned in our Association letter No. S/GEN/2023/123 dated 26.11.2023 sent by (Speed Post) along with letters/details enclosres addressed to Chairman.
3. Details of action taken on our Association letter No. S/GEN/2023 dated 23.12.2023 Keeping in view of letter dated 19.12.2023. Enclosure date may kindly read as 17.02.2022.
4. Action taken to provide selected reserved candidates to Delhi Govt.
and different Departments of Delhi Govt., N.D.M.C., MCDs. Based on DOPT O.M. dated 18.12.12.
Page 14 of 295. Action taken to provide ST candidates based on Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC/Mino. letter dated 10.12.10 copy already provided on the issue for giving reservation to ST candidate as mentioned "there is no notified ST in Delhi"."
25.The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.02.2024 stating as under:
"1 to 5. As per record no information of any action is available in this branch. It is informed this branch came into existence September 2022."
26.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 20.02.2024, held as under.
"On perusal of the record it is found that reply dated 02/01/2024 given by PIO (P&P-I) is found not to be satisfactory. Now, PIO (P&P-I) is directed to give available information with point wise revised reply to the appellant within 07 days of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed accordingly."
27.In compliance of FAA's order the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 28.03.2024 to the appellant as under:
"1. No such information is available in this branch.
2. DSSSB has been mandated to recruit suitable/eligible candidates in r/o Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) and Group 'C' post on the basis of requisition/vacancy/RR sent by User Department. DSSSB has no role to alter the vacancy as reported by User Department as the vacancies roaster/number of vacancies is to be maintained by concerned department/autonomous bodies/board/local body.
3. DSSSB has been mandated to recruit suitable/eligible candidates in r/o Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) and Group 'C' post on the basis of requisition/vacancy/RR sent by User Department. DSSSB has no role to alter the vacancy as reported by User Department as the vacancies roaster/number of vacancies is to be maintained by concerned department/autonomous bodies/board/local body.
4. DSSSB has been mandated to recruit suitable/eligible candidates in r/o Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) and Group 'C' post on the basis of requisition/vacancy/RR sent by User Department. DSSSB has no role to alter the vacancy as reported by User Department as the vacancies roaster/number of vacancies is to be maintained by concerned department/autonomous bodies/board/local body.Page 15 of 29
5. DSSSB has been mandated to recruit suitable/eligible candidates in r/o Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) and Group 'C' post on the basis of requisition/vacancy/RR sent by User Department. DSSSB has no role to alter the vacancy as reported by User Department as the vacancies roaster/number of vacancies is to be maintained by concerned department/autonomous bodies/board/local body."
28.Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.02.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
29.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent No. 1: Shri Ganga Ram, Dy. Director-cum-CPIO along with Sri Rohit Handa, Sr. Assistant, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi present in person. Respondent No. 2: Not present.
Respondent No. 3: Shri Sunil Barthwal, Junior Secretariat Assistant, CED, MCD, Delhi present in person.
Respondent No. 4: Dr. Sundar K. Bhandari, DDE, MCD, HQ, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No. 5: Shri Irfan Ali, SSA, Hospital Administration, MCD, HQ, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No. 6: Shri P K Banerjee, Dy. Director (Horticulture) II-cum-PIO along with Shri G. B. Pahari, SSA, (Horticulture) II, MCD, HQ, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No. 7: Shri S D Sharma, SO-cum-APIO along with Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta, RTI officer, MCD, Education Department, SSZ, Delhi present in person.
Respondent No. 8: Shri Upender Kumar, SO along with Shri Krishna, ASO, Public Grievance Commission, IP Estate, New Delhi present in person.Page 16 of 29
Respondent No. 9: Shri J A Khan, Dy. Secretary-cum-PIO along with Shri Manoranjan, SO and Shri Rajesh Sharma, ASO, DSSSB, Karkardooma, Delhi present in person.
30.The core contention raised by the Appellant in all the instant appeals was that the Respondent Authorities have not taken consequential actions or issued orders on the reply given by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) dated 26.07.2023 to the Appellant which merely states a fact that there are no notified ST in Delhi. Appellant alleged that despite the statement of fact by MoTA, various departments of GNCTD and MCD violate the provisions by giving reservation for ST category in their recruitment process. This led him to filing of instant RTI applications. Further, the appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the issue flagged by him was not given due consideration by the Respondent Public Authorities. Hence, these Second Appeals with the prayer to the Commission to intervene in the matters.
31.In case file No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/102415, a written submission dated Nil filed by the respondent No. 1 which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"....as per available record of Secy. Estt. Branch, NDMC, Sh. Phool Chand had sought information under RTI Act, 2005 vide his RTI application no. NDMC/OR/2023/60591 dated 16.10.2023. Unintentionally, reply of other division was uploaded on the portal and actual reply dated 15.01.2024 which was signed could not be sent/uploaded to the applicant. However, the actual reply dated 15.01.2024 (Copy attached) to his RTI application dated 16.10.2023 is being sent to him through this instant letter. Unintentional error/mistake on the part of official in the Estt. may kindly be regretted.
Contents of reply dated 15.01.2024:
1. No contract appointment has been made on or after 01.01.2018 in NDMC.
Furthermore, the information sought is scattered over a number of files. The information sought by the applicant is not only cumbersome to compile but also is a burden to the department and the numerous detail sought therein are not readily available and compilation if attempted would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. Further PIO is not supposed to create Page 17 of 29 information under ssection 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Further, if any specific information is required, visit the office on mutual convenient date.
2. Two Order issed Vide O.O. no. F.16(730/97-S III/710dated 30.06.2005 and No. F.19(6)/2012/S-IV/883 dated 10.05.2013 from Services Deptt. of GNCT&D on the reservation for SCs/Sts in the job under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The said orders clearly provide reservation for SC/ST in jobs under GNCT&D of Delhi. (copy enclosed) Reservation in posts are governed as per the Constitution of India. Rosters are prepared to maintain representator i.e. 15% for SC & 7.5% for ST. Accordingly, requsitions are sent to DSSSB for filling up vacancies.
3. In this regard a circular already issued by the personnel Department vide No. SO(E)/1539/SA-I/2015 dated 11.12.2015, for endorsing a copy of vacancies reserved for SC/ST (being notified to DSSSB/UPSC) to Voluntary Associations of SC/ST intimating the SC/ST vacancies. (copy enclosed)
4. In this regard, it is informed that according to the Screening Committee, in the priority list of appointment his number was placed at Sr. Number 347th and in which he had got 41 marks, while cut of marks was 67, on the basis of obtained marks his name is not in the list of 47 selected candidates
5. Reply had already given vide this office letter no. SO(Estt.)/307/PIO/JD(Estt.)/SA-I dated 11.10.2018 (copy enclosed)"
32. Respondent No. 1 by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his averred written submission stated that a revised point-wise updated reply with available information has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 15.01.2024. Upon being queried by the Commission, the appellant affirmed the receipt of the averred reply prior to filing of this Second Appeal, however, he vaguely stated that reply was not satisfactory.
33. In case File No. CIC/NDMCN/A/2024/102458, Respondent No. 2 remained absent during hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance.
34.In case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/102993, a written submission dated 08.05.2025 filed by Shri Vijay Pandey, PIO/Administrative Officer, CED, MCD (Respondent No. 3 herein) is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:Page 18 of 29
"...(i) The appellant Shri Phool Chand, *******, had filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2023, which was received in this department (PIO/CED) on 18.10.2023 and registered with RTI No. 518 dated 18.10.2023(Annexure 'A').
(ii) That PIO/CED vide letter No- PIO/AO(Estt)/CED/MCD/DA-RTI-ID-
518/2023/4831 dated 17.11.2023 has provided reply to the appellant under the provisions contained in RTI Act, 2005 through Speed Post on the address as provided by the appellant in his application (Annexure 'B').
(iii) That Shri Phool Chand vide letter dated 29.11.2023 has made an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (Annexure 'C'). Accordingly, he was called for hearing before the First Appellate Authority vide this department's letter No-PIO/AO(Estt)/CED/MCD/DA-RTI-ID- 518/2023/5185 dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure 'D'), but he failed to attend the same. As per provisions contained in the RTI Act, accordingly, the then First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal having been examined the appeal and RTI application of the appellant with no further directions to PIO, CED (Annexure 'E').
(iv) In this connection, it is reiterated that requisite information has already been provided to the appellant vide this department's letter No- PIO/AO(Estt.)/CED/MCD/DA-RTI-ID-518/2023/4831 dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure 'B') which duly confirmed by First Appellate Authority (FAA)..."
35. Respondent No. 3, by inviting the attention of the Commission towards the contents of his averred written submission stated that a point-wise reply with available information has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 17.11.2023. During the hearing, Respondent No. 3 handed over a copy of his written submission to the appellant which is taken on record.
36.In case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/105387, a written submission dated 07.05.2025 filed by PIO/DDE/ Edn. HQ (Respondent No. 4 herein) is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
Page 19 of 29"...Sh. Phool, Appellant/Complainant, r/o ******, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP- 201301.
The appellant has filed
1. RTI ID no. 238 dated 30.11.2022
2. RTI ID no. 504 dated 20.10.2023
3. RTI ID no. 552 dated 07.12.2023 In all the three RTI applications the questions have been repeated. Appellant was given the opportunity for hearing vide letter no. D/ADC/Co- ord./Edn./HQ/MCD/2024/D-1016 dated 03.01.2024. You may, at your discretion be present in person or through your duly authorized representative before Addl. Director (Edn.)-SS, First Appellate authority on 10.01.2024 at 12:15 PM Dr. Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Civic Center, 15th floor E-1 Blok J.L Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002.
xxx Phool Chand President & Senior Citizen The appeal was held on 10.01.2024 at 12:15 P.M Question asked in the RTI application from Education Department were pertaining to 12 zones of MCD, and different branches of HQ. The reply received from respective PIO were provided to Sh. Gheesu Lal Ji, representative of the appellant. In the appeal decision dated 15.01.2024, PIO TRC was directed to provide the reply of RTI ID No. 504 within 7 working days. PIO/TRC has submitted the reply vide no. D/DDE/TRC/EDN./MCD/HQ/2024/48 dated 19.02.2024. It is very pertinent to mention here that RTI application was submitted to the CPIO, care of Commissioner, MCD, Dr, Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre, 2nd floor E-1 Blok J.L Nehru Marg. New Delhi-110002. Which has been received in the Education Department after transfer from PIO/HQ in Education Department.
Previously also CIC appeal hearing was held on 24.07.2024 at 11:30 A.M. information vide letter D/DDE/Co-ord./Edn./MCD/HQ/2024/D-2002 dated 16.07.2024 had been uploaded.
Reference Notice for hearing in CIC fixed for 14.05.2025 at 12:20 P.M. PIO/DDE/Coordination of Education Department is directed to re-check that the reply of RTIs received from Sh. Phool Chand have been replied and sent by speed post. kind reference.
Copies of all the replies received by PIO/Co-ord. branch/ Education Department HQ are enclosed..."Page 20 of 29
37. Respondent No. 4 brought the attention of the Commission to the contents of his written submission and stated that Appellant has filed multiple RTI applications on the identical issue and the same were replied on each occasion. Further, the directions of the FAA were also complied by giving a revised point-wise reply to the appellant.
38.In case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/105385, Respondent No. 5 submitted that point-wise reply along with relevant information as is available in the record has already been provided to the appellant. No further information is available at their end.
39. In case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108964, Respondent No. 6 during hearing submitted that pointwise with available information has been provided to the appellant in the first instance.
40.In case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108963, an undated written submission filed by PIO/ Edn./ SSZ (Respondent No. 7 herein) is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
In response to aforementioned appeal it is to inform that an RTI application was submitted by the applicant Shri Phool Chand in the office of care taker MCD which was transferred to all branches of MCD/HÌ for proper reply. Copy of the same was transferred by the Education department HÌ vide ID No. 552 dated 07. 12.2023 to zone for reply. In compliance of said RTI the PIO Education Shahdara South zone was given reply to appellant with request that he can make appeal before 1st appellate authority. Accordingly, he was made an appeal before 1st appellate authority but didn't not turn up before 1st appellation authority on dated 28.02.2024 and 24.04.2024. Now instant appeal before hon'ble CIC has been made by the appellant.
Point wise amended reply in as follow:
1. This question is not related to zonal authorities because zone is not competent to engage/appoint any type of employee either regular and Contract. Hence, this information may be provided by the PIO's which had already transferred this RTI application by the caretaker MCD.
2. As above
3. No such letter has been received in the office of Education Department Shahdara South Zone.
4. As per answer no. 01.
5. As per answer no. 01.Page 21 of 29
6. Not pertains to Education Department Shahdara South Zone."
41. Respondent No. 7, by inviting the attention of the Commission towards the contents of his averred written submission stated that a point-wise reply with available information has already been provided to the appellant earlier and now, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission a revised updated reply has been prepared. During the hearing, Respondent No. 7 handed over a copy of his written submission to the appellant which is taken on record.
42.In case File No. CIC/PGCOM/A/2024/107443, Respondent No. 8 submitted that a categorical reply intimating factual position has already been provided to the appellant at the initial stage. No further information is available with them.
43.In case File No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/107402, a written submission dated 13.05.2025 filed by Respondent No. 9 (Shri Javed Alam Khan, Dy. Secretary (P & P)/ PIO, DSSSB is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for reference:
"1. That the application dated 04.01.2024 of the applicant Sh. Phool Chand under RTI Act, 2005 was received in this branch on 12.01.2024 through offline mode wherein, five information was sought. The reply to the said application was provided to the applicant through offline RTI module in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 12.02.2024. Further, the reply of various letters/reminders received from Sh. Phool Chand has already been given vide this office letter dated 22.11.2024 (copy enclosed).
2. That the applicant preferred to file an appeal before First Appellate Authority and FAA vide order dated 20.02.2024 has ordered to give point wise revised reply to the appellant (copy enclosed).
3. That in compliance of the said order the information was again provided to the applicant vide letter dated 28.03.2024 (copy enclosed).
4. That it is also informed that the reply of the information sought by the applicant had been provided to the applicant under RTI Act, 2005 within stipulated time period as per available record in this branch/office at that time.
5. It is my humble submission that the undersigned utmost regard to the RTI Act, 2005 and its provisions laid down under the Act. As the information has Page 22 of 29 already provided to the applicant as per available record, the appeal filed by appellant may be disposed off in view of the submission made above."
44. Respondent No. 9, by inviting the attention of the Commission towards the contents of his averred written submission stated that a point-wise reply with available information has already been provided to the appellant earlier and now, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, a written submission has been uploaded on the CIC's website. During the hearing, Respondent No. 9 handed over a copy of his written submission to the appellant which is taken on record.
Decision:
45. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that as far as RTI Application is concerned appropriate response has been provided to the appellant earlier vide letters dated 26.10.2023 and again now vide written submission dated 28.03.2025 as the provisions of the RTI Act, which are upheld. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.
46. It was noted during the hearing that the Appellant is embracing his grievance as noted in the para 30 above and no specific information has been sought by him as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
47. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
48. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
Page 23 of 29"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
49. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
50. In view of the above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
51. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, in case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2024/108963, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
52. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. . . Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
53. The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving Page 24 of 29 information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
54. Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act- In view of above, an additional advisory, is issued to Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
55. The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
56. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 120 cases of the same Appellant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In addition, 10 number of Second Appeals are also listed for Page 25 of 29 today's hearing of which nine are heard together. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information repeatedly. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
57. It appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
58. Therefore, the Commission counsels the Appellant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Page 26 of 29 Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under
-
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
59. Hence, the appellant is advised to make sensible use of his Right to Information in future.
With these observations, the instant appeals are disposed of.
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 Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department 7th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat I. P. Estate, New Delhi 110002 Page 27 of 29 Copy To:
The FAA, Director (P-I), New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 Copy To:
The FAA New Delhi Municipal Council, Education Department, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 Copy To:
THE FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Establishment Department, E-Block, 22nd Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Education Department-HQ, 15th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Hospital Administration (HQ), E-Block, 18th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Horticulture Department (HQ), 16th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002 Page 28 of 29 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Education Department, Shahdara (South) Zone, 419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi - 110092 Copy To:
The FAA Public Grievance Commission, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, I P Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Copy To:
The FAA Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, FC - 18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092 Page 29 of 29 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. Any other recommendation(s) to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005-
Section 25 (5) of The RTI Act Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)