Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rahul Dahiya vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 7 February, 2020

                                  के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2018/141012

Shri Rahul Dahiya                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO/Dy. Secy. (I.Cell), DSSSB, Karkardooma,              ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi

PIO/S.A/IT     PIO,    Dy.    Secy.,       DSSSB,
Karkardooma, Delhi
Through: Sh. S. Roy Biswas, APIO

Date of Hearing                        :   04.02.2020
Date of Decision                       :   06.02.2020

Information Commissioner          :        Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on         :   24.02.2018
PIO replied on                   :   Nil
First Appeal filed on            :   22.04.2018
First Appellate Order on         :   Nil
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                              :   24.06.2018
 Information sought

and background of the case:

Appellant filed RTI application dated 24.02.2018 seeking information on 17 points, inter alia;

1. Please provide me various Modes of Document Verification used in verifying candidature of candidates for the post of TGT Computer (Post Code: 192/14).

2. For Documents verification done by Online Mode, if there is any Server Problem while uploading documents/e-dossier then what are the alternative Modes adopted for verifying documents of the candidates selected for the Post Code-192/14?

3. How many candidates have faced server problem during uploading of their e- dossier/documents for Post Code-192/14?

4. How many candidates have sent their e-dossier/documents for verification through E-mail to the E-mail Id provided by DSSSB i.e. [email protected] for Post Code-192/14.

5. Please provide Name of candidates who have sent their e-dossier/documents for verification through E-mail to the E-mail Id provided by DSSSB i.e. [email protected] for Post Code-192/14.

6. Please provide the certified print/hard copy of the emails received from the candidates who have sent their e-dossier on the email id i.e. Wcsedossierproblem2gmail.com provided by DSSSB.

7. Who was the Dealing head (Provide name of the officer with designation) for the proper Functioning and Maintenance of the Server for uploading e- dossier/documents for the Post Code-192/14?

8. Whether the candidates who failed to upload their e-dossiers online for Post Code-192/14 but had E-mailed their dossier/documents on E-mail Id provided by DSSSB i.e. [email protected], were individually informed about the status of their candidature? Etc PIO/Dy. Secy./I.Cell, vide letter dated 27.03.2018 forwarded his application to PIO/S.A/ IT, DSSSB.

Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.04.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Both parties are present for hearing and Appellant's representative claims that since the Appellant's candidature was wrongly rejected on the ground of non- uploading of necessary documents, the RTI queries had been submitted seeking necessary information. Respondent has produced documents claiming to have answered the queries and sent copy thereof to the Appellant on 03.02.2020, which has obviously not been received by the Appellant. Copy of the same has been provided during the course of hearing. Appellant further claims to have deposited fees of Fifty rupees for obtaining necessary information which has not been furnished to her till date, but could not produce any document substantiating her claim. There is no cogent explanation for the delay in furnishing of information by the respondent, which has been supplied admittedly on 03.02.2020 nor has the respondent explained the reason for not taking any action or attempt to respond to the RTI queries though the application stood transferred on 27.03.2018.

Decision:

The Commission notes that a reply has been provided to the appellant after a gap of approximately two years. The reply which claims to have been provided on 27.03.2018 is just a transfer of application. No action seems to have been taken after transfer of RTI application. Such inordinate, unnecessary and unexplained delay in furnishing of information defeats the very purpose and objective of the RTI Act and hence such laxity cannot be entertained. Accordingly, Respondent is directed to submit appropriate explanation justifying the delay of 2 years in furnishing the information, which must reach the Commission by 28.02.2020, with an advance copy served upon the Appellant. It is made clear that non-

adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per provisions of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above 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