vkjVhvkbZ : 08.01.2018 izFke vihy: 24.01.2018 f}rh; vihy: 04.06.2018 ds-t-lw-vf/k-:13.01.2018 iz-v-vk- : 26.03.2018 lquokbZ dh frfFk: 25.10.2019 vkns"k 1- izkFkhZ us lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds varxZr nkf[ky vius mDr vkosnu] tks dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] lkmFk bLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼,lbZlh,y½] fcykliqj dks izsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds ek/;e ls i= Øekad ,ds, % tsih,y 2400 esa-ok- % ,lbZlh,y% 85@13 twu] 2015 ds lanHkZ esa DO Øekad 052015@4909@01863@166270 fnukad 18-05-2015 ds ek/;e ls egkizca/kd] lsYl ,.M ekdsZfVax] fcykliqj dks fn;s x, f"kdk;r i=] tks dksy ifjogu ds laca/k esa [knku dh vl{kerk ls lacaf/kr Fkh ds lanHkZ esa dh x;h dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk rFkk leLr fjiksVksaZ dh Nk;kizfr;ksa dh ekax dh FkhA 2- lafpdk esa miyC/k rF;ksa ds vuqlkj dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] NRrhlx<+ us izkFkhZ dks ;g lwfpr fd;k fd lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds rgr yksd lwp uk foHkkx }kjk fdlh rjg dh tkap ;k dkjZokbZ ugha dh tkrh gSA izkIr tokc ls vlarq'V gksdj izkFkhZ us izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj ds le{k izFke vihy lafLFkr dhA izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh us vius vkns"k esa dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh }kjk iznku dh x;h lwpuk dks lgh Bgjk;kA vk;ksx dks izsf'kr vius f}rh; vihy esa izkFkhZ us okafNr lwpuk iznku djok;s tkus] muij ij vFkZn.M vf/kjksfir djus vkSj izkFkhZ dks {kfriwfrZ iznku djok;s tkus dk vkxzg vk;ksx ls fd;k gSA lquokbZ :

vkjVhvkbZ : 08.01.2018 izFke vihy: 24.01.2018 f}rh; vihy: 04.06.2018 ds-t-lw-vf/k-:13.01.2018 iz-v-vk- : 26.03.2018 lquokbZ dh frfFk: 25.10.2019 vkns"k 1- izkFkhZ us lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds varxZr nkf[ky vius mDr vkosnu] tks dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] lkmFk bLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼,lbZlh,y½] fcykliqj dks izsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds ek/;e ls i= Øekad ,ds, % tsih,y 2400 esa-ok- % ,lbZlh,y% 90@22 twu] 2015 ds lanHkZ esa DO Øekad 052015@4909@01863@166270 fnukad 18-05-2015 ds ek/;e ls egkizca/kd] lsYl ,.M ekdsZfVax] fcykliqj dks fn;s x, f"kdk;r i=] tks dksy ifjogu ds laca/k esa [knku dh vl{kerk ls lacaf/kr Fkh ds lanHkZ esa dh x;h dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk rFkk leLr fjiksVksaZ dh Nk;kizfr;ksa dh ekax dh FkhA 2- lafpdk esa miyC/k rF;ksa ds vuqlkj dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] NRrhlx<+ us izkFkhZ dks ;g lwfpr fd;k fd lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds rgr yksd lwp uk foHkkx }kjk fdlh rjg dh tkap ;k dkjZokbZ ugha dh tkrh gSA izkIr tokc ls vlarq'V gksdj izkFkhZ us izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj ds le{k izFke vihy lafLFkr dhA izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh us vius vkns"k esa dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh }kjk iznku dh x;h lwpuk dks lgh Bgjk;kA vk;ksx dks izsf'kr vius f}rh; vihy esa izkFkhZ us okafNr lwpuk iznku djok;s tkus] muij ij vFkZn.M vf/kjksfir djus vkSj izkFkhZ dks {kfriwfrZ iznku djok;s tkus dk vkxzg vk;ksx ls fd;k gSA lquokbZ :

vkjVhvkbZ : 08.01.2018 izFke vihy: 24.01.2018 f}rh; vihy: 04.06.2018 ds-t-lw-vf/k-:13.01.2018 iz-v-vk- : 26.03.2018 lquokbZ dh frfFk: 25.10.2019 vkns"k 1- izkFkhZ us lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds varxZr nkf[ky vius mDr vkosnu] tks dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] lkmFk bLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼,lbZlh,y½] fcykliqj dks izsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds ek/;e ls i= Øekad ,ds, % tsih,y 2400 esa-ok- % ,lbZlh,y% 87@15 twu 2015 ds lanHkZ esa DO Øekad 052015@4909@01863@166270 fnukad 18-05-2015 ds ek/;e ls egkizca/kd] lsYl ,.M ekdsZfVax] fcykliqj dks fn;s x, f"kdk;r i=] tks dksy ifjogu ds laca/k esa [knku dh vl{kerk ls lacaf/kr Fkh ds lanHkZ esa dh x;h dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk rFkk leLr fjiksVksaZ dh Nk;kizfr;ksa dh ekax dh FkhA 2- lafpdk esa miyC/k rF;ksa ds vuqlkj dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] NRrhlx<+ us izkFkhZ dks ;g lwfpr fd;k fd lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds rgr yksd lwpuk foHkkx }kjk fdlh rjg dh tkap ;k dkjZokbZ ugha dh tkrh gSA izkIr tokc ls vlarq'V gksdj izkFkhZ us izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj ds le{k izFke vihy lafLFkr dhA izFke vihyh;

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: R Rajan, DGM & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought information regarding payment of EPF recovered from paid bills for the tender period from 01.05.2008 to 30.04.2009.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as his EPF amount is still not paid to him.

1

The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant on 13.10.2017. He further apprised the Commission that the issue regarding the non payment of EPF amount which were recovered from the paid bills for the tender period mentioned above, was referred to arbitration which will pass a final award as per Clause 21.01 of the tender condition according to which in case of a dispute between the parties, the matter will be automatically referred to arbitration whose decision will be final and binding on both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri H.M Azad, Deputy Registrar (Admin) and CPIO alongwith Shri Praveen Tiwari, Secretary, CPIO S.P. Memorial B.Ed. College, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to SP Memorial B.Ed. College:

1

1. Provide name, post, educational qualification and photograph of the teachers appointed in 2009-2010.

2. Provide name, post, educational qualification and photograph of the teachers appointed in 2010-2011.

3. Provide name, post, educational qualification and photograph of the teachers appointed in 2011-2012.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case despite duly served notice on 15.10.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED451990353IN.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Professor Sanjay Lakshman Madar, HoD and CPIO Dharwad and Professor Amarjyoti and CPIO Chennai, present over VC Information Sought:

1

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Give date fixed for Convocation by the Sabha held in 2017 for the award of Ph.D. degree in the subject of Hindi.

2. Certified status of Ph.D. degree whether it has been awarded to the appellant in absentia or would be awarded on attending convocation.

3. Certified copy of order/circular/regulation vide which the Provisional certificate does not become invalid in case Ph.D. degree is not provided after 30/12/2016, as the same has become invalid after expiry of one year.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri G.R Samantray, Joint Registrar and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information regarding National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra:

1. Attested copy of the merit list of the candidates selected in response to advertisement No. 10/2016 in Electronics and Communication Engg. Department.

2. Attested copy of the merit list of the candidates selected in response advertisement No. 10/2016 in Electrical Engg. Department.

1

3. Attested copy of the salary offered by the institute to the Assistant Professor on adhoc basis, contract basis, long term contract basis and temporary faculties.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Smt. Seema Khakha, Assistant Secretary and PIO, present in person Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Apart from tution fees, what kind of other amount can be charged from the parents of the student by school management in CBSE recognised schools, provide details.

2. Whether any permission is taken from CBSE by the school management before increasing the fees.

1

3. Whether parent association is mandatory in schools.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply for all the points of the RTI application.

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Provide Minutes of the meeting held on 17.11.2017 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Ajay Kumar, Additional Secretary, MEIT (agenda Modalities for allowing import of second hand goods notified under CRO)

2. Provide the internal file noting between Jt. Director, Director, Jt. Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary from 01st July 2017 till date.

3. Provide final notings of the Secretary to the Hon'ble Minister regarding:-

1

a. One time exemption for the landed containers at various ports in India b. Future policy of import of second hand multi function devices. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ravi Shanker Verma, Head Grievances & CPIO, present in person.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1

1. Provide no. of students/ aspirants enrolled under UDAAN project during financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 under different training programme by different corporate partners approved by NSDC.

2. Name, address, aadhar no. of the students enrolled in UDAAN scheme during financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 under different training programme by different corporate partners approved by NSDC.

3. Details of payments made to each student by corporate partners as stipend or any other payments such as Transportation, Boarding and lodging etc. for the financial year 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Dr R Zonuntluang, Joint Registrar & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant had submitted separate applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Biotechnology under Unreserved category (BITU) and other backward category (OBC) on 05/01/2016 but he has not received any intimation regarding the interview from Mizoram University. In this regard he has sought the following information:

1. Give the explanation for the delay in scrutinizing candidates for the interview.

1

2. If the interview is over, provide the copy of selected candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Biotechnology under unreserved and OBC category.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Gurdev Singh, Deputy Director and CPIO, present in person alongwith Shri S.Mahendran, Section Officer (Personnel) Information Sought:

The appellant had sent a letter vide speed post No. 598279489 dated 04/02/2009 for interview to the post of Peon. In this regard he has sought the following information:

1. Whether the said letter was received in the department or not.

2. Why the appellant was not called for the interview.

3. Date and month when his appointment letter would be given.

4. And other related information.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of points no. 1 and 5 of the RTI application. The CPIO submitted that same issue was extensively discussed and adjudicated upon on 25.09.2019 by the same bench in case no. CIC/NIOPS/A/2018/139340. The appellant contended that the information sought in both the RTI applications are different.

Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Gurdev Singh, Deputy Director (Admn) and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:

The complainant has sought the following information regarding NIOS (HQ), Noida, U.P.:

1. No. of permanent and contractual staff working at NIOS.

2. Names of employees working on contract.

3. Salary/ payment drawn by each employee working on contract.

1

Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:

The complainant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case despite duly served notice on 15.10.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED343070483IN.

The appellant has sought information about evaluation system, re-evaluation system, and percentile in NIOS. He also has sought information regarding re- evaluation of answersheet of his son Udai Kiran.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant through his written submission stated that the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority have not furnished exact information to his RTI question nor did they take corrective measures on the applications made time and again. As a result, his son lost a prospective seat in NIT offered through IIT JEE 2018. His repeated requests for proper evaluation/ reevaluation were not considered. He requested the Commission to get the papers re-evaluated by a third party and to punish the evaluators who under evaluated these papers again and again. He summed up stating that the NIOS authorities support this malpractice repeatedly.

vkjVhvkbZ : 08.01.2018 izFke vihy: 27.03.2018 f}rh; vihy: 08.06.2018 ds-t-lw-vf/k-:21.03.2018 iz-v-vk- : 20.04.2018 lquokbZ dh frfFk: 25.10.2019 vkns"k 1- izkFkhZ us lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds varxZr nkf[ky vius mDr vkosnu] tks dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] lkmFk bLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼,lbZlh,y½] fcykliqj dks izsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds ek/;e ls i= Øekad ,ds, % tsih,y 2400 esa-ok- % ,lbZlh,y% 92@8 tqykbZ] 2015 ds lanHkZ esa DO Øekad 052015@4909@01863@166270 fnukad 18-05-2015 ds ek/;e ls egkizca/kd] lsYl ,.M ekdsZfVax] fcykliqj dks fn;s x, f"kdk;r i=] tks dksy ifjogu ds laca/k esa [knku dh vl{kerk ls lacaf/kr Fkh vkSj ftldh izfrfyfi funs"kd rduhdh ¼ifjpkyu½] fcykliqj dks i`'Bkafdr Fkh] ds lanHkZ esa funs"kd rduhdh ¼ifjpkyu½ dk;kZy; }kjk dh x;h dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk rFkk leLr fjiksVksZa dh Nk;kizfr;ksa dh ekax dh FkhA 2- lafpdk esa miyC/k rF;ksa ds vuqlkj dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] NRrhlx<+ us izkFkhZ dk vkosnu lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6¼3½ ds varxZr yksd lwpuk vf/kdkjh] jk;x<+ dks varfjr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dh jk; esa dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] 1 NRrhlx<+ }kjk izkFkhZ dk vkosnu dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] jk;x<+] ,lbZlh,y dks varfjr fd;k tkuk xyr Fkk] D;ksfa d izkFkhZ dh jk; esa lwpuk ,lbZlh,y fcykliqj ls gh lacaf/kr FkhA blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ us izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj ds le{k izFke vihy lafLFkr dhA ysfdu izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj us izkFkhZ dks izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] jk;x<+ ls lh/ks laidZ djus dh lykg nhA vk;ksx dks izsf'kr vius f}rh; vihy esa dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] ,lbZlh,y] fcykliqj ls lwpuk iznku djok;s tkus] muij ij vFkZn.M vf/kjksfir djus vkSj izkFkhZ dks {kfriwfrZ iznku djok;s tkus dk vkxzg vk;ksx ls fd;k gSA lquokbZ :

vkjVhvkbZ : 08.01.2018 izFke vihy: 27.03.2018 f}rh; vihy: 08.06.2018 ds-t-lw-vf/k-:15.02.2018 iz-v-vk- : 20.04.2018 lquokbZ dh frfFk: 25.10.2019 vkns"k 1- izkFkhZ us lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds varxZr nkf[ky vius mDr vkosnu] tks dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] lkmFk bLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼,lbZlh,y½] fcykliqj dks izsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds ek/;e ls i= Øekad ,ds, % tsih,y 2400 esa-ok- % ,lbZlh,y% 002@18 tuojh] 2016 ds lanHkZ esa DO Øekad 052015@4909@01863@166270 fnukad 18-05-2015 ds ek/;e ls egkizca/kd] ,lbZlh,y jk;x<+ dks fn;s x, f"kdk;r i=] tks dksy ifjogu ds laca/k esa [knku dh vl{kerk ls lacaf/kr Fkh vkSj ftldh izfrfyfi egkizca/kd] lsYl ,.M ekdsZfVax] fcykiqj dks i`'Bkafdr dh x;h Fkh] ds lanHkZ esa egkizca/kd] lsYl ,.M ekdsZfVax] fcykiqj ds dk;kZy; }kjk dh x;h dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk rFkk leLr fjiksVksZa dh Nk;kizfr;ksa dh ekax dh FkhA 2- lafpdk esa miyC/k rF;ksa ds vuqlkj dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] NRrhlx<+ us izkFkhZ dk vkosnu lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6¼3½ ds varxZr yksd lwpuk vf/kdkjh] jk;x<+ dks varfjr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dh jk; esa dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj] 1 NRrhlx<+ }kjk izkFkhZ dk vkosnu dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] jk;x<+] ,lbZlh,y dks varfjr fd;k tkuk xyr Fkk] D;ksfa d izkFkhZ dh jk; esa lwpuk ,lbZlh,y fcykliqj ls gh lacaf/kr FkhA blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ us izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj ds le{k izFke vihy laf LFkr dhA ysfdu izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj us izkFkhZ dks izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh] jk;x<+ ls lh/ks laidZ djus dh lykg nhA vk;ksx dks izsf'kr vius f}rh; vihy esa dsUnzh; tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh] ,lbZlh,y] fcykliqj ls lwpuk iznku djok;s tkus] muij ij vFkZn.M vf/kjksfir djus vkSj izkFkhZ dks {kfriwfrZ iznku djok;s tkus dk vkxzg vk;ksx ls fd;k gSA lquokbZ :

Information Sought:

The appellant is a contractual employee of TDB who has been suspended vide letter dated 22/04/2018, wherein it has been mentioned that TDB has received a complaint written by four contractual employees of TDB levelling corruption charges on the Secretary, TDB on appointments, misuse of official vehicles etc. The appellant has sought a copy of the said complaint.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. Giving the background of the case, he submitted that he received various letters from CVC dated 02.02.2018 and 14.03.2018 and from Vigilance Cell, DST dated 12.04.2018 regarding confirmation of a complaint dated 22.01.2018 against Dr Bindu Dey, Secretary, Technology Development Board levelling corruption on appointment and misuse of official vehicle. He further submitted that vide his letter dated 16.04.2018, he had denied in writing both to CVC and DST that no such complaint was made by him and his forged identity has been used to defame him and to ruin his career. It was informed to him that the matter would be marked as pseudonymous and will be closed. It was also informed that neither CVC nor DST will initiate any action on the same as the same was denied in writing by him. However, Dr Bindu Dey suspended 15 contractual employees vide letter dated 22.04.2018 without any reason and a Vigilance Enquiry is proposed to be initiated through DST Vigilance Cell and CVC Cell to look into the matter. He further submitted that as of now his services have been terminated. Against the above said termination orders, he has filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The documents/information as sought vide the aforesaid RTI Application will strengthen his case in the Hon'ble High Court.

The appellant has sought the following information regarding services engaged from outsourced agencies for 2018-19:

1. E.M.D./Security Money bearing draft No. 471415 dt. 11/06/2018 for Rs. 10,000/- returned in original but no specific reason for returning the same mentioned in letter No. 156 dt. 09/07/2018. Provide detailed reasons.

2. Name of contractor who was awarded the contract with specific period (category wise).

1

3. Comparative statement drawn on the basis of rates submitted by the tenderers.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 2, 4 & 6 of the RTI application. He further submitted that after the intervention of the Commission in File no.CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/106722-BJ dated 23.10.2018, similar information was provided to him and hence the denial by the CPIO in providing the sought for information in this case is not proper. He also stated that after the CPIO's reply, he had deposited Rs 50/- with the department to get the desired information but even then no information was supplied to him. He stressed that such information should be disclosed to ensure greater transparency and accountability. He also relied upon another decisions of the CIC in the case of CIC/KVSAN/A/2017/151936-BJ dated 10.09.2013.

Respondent alone is present for hearing while the Appellant has not appeared despite service of hearing notice in advance. It appears from the contentions of the respondent that the Appellant has been litigating about his grievance with respect to occupation and use of premises and the germane issue in the instant case is related to illegal encroachment of rented premises.

Decision It is noted that inadequate facts have been put forth for adjudication of the case at hand. Even the Appellant is not present to support his own claim. First Appeal in this case has also not been adjudicated upon, nor are the respondents prepared with adequate submissions about the facts of the case.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Not present Information Sought:

The appellant worked with JMD TOURS and TRAVELS (Estt. Code DL 36401/00012) from June 2007 to August 2010 and the PF contribution was deducted by the company and was deposited in EPFO, Wazirpur Office. The appellant had also transferred his previous company PF contribution in the same account for which he received the confirmation letter from Wazirpur Office. But at the time of PF withdrawal, his requests have been denied by Wazirpur office mentioning that the PF Contribution has not been deposited by 1 the employer. The appellant wants to know the reasons for the same and by which time he would get his PF amount.