##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/125424

Sher Singh ….अपीलकता१/Appellant

VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Delhi Jal Board … ঋितवादीगण/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 28.04.2026

Date of Decision : 15.05.2026

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 31.03.2022 FA : 06.06.2022 SA : 21.05.2024

CPIO : 22.04.2022 FAO : 05.07.2022 Hearing : 28.04.2026

Date of Decision: 15.05.2026

CORAM

Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.03.2022 before the PIO, Delhi

Jal Board, seeking the following information:

“I am Sher Singh employee of the Delhi Jal Board and I appeared in the

examination organized by DJB for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant my

Roll No. 0220087 is kindly furnish the reply of the following points respectively.

1. Please provide the my Answer sheet both first one is MCQ and the Second

one is Subjective also provide the photo-copy of answer-key and question paper.

2. I want to know what is the process of re-check the answer sheet. Please quote

reference of our RTI No. 2/24 in your reply..”

[reproduced verbatim]

Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/125424 Page 1 of 3

1 / 4

2. The PIO, Delhi Jal Board, vide reply dated 27.04.2022 furnished the following

response:

“Delhi Jal board is not the custodian of the requisite information. Guru

Gobind Singh Indra Prastha University is the custodian of the requisite

information.”

[reproduced verbatim]

3. The Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 06.06.2022 stating that he was not

satisfied with the reply received from the PIO. The FAA passed an order dated

05.07.2022 directing as under:

“..PIO is directed not only to transfer the RTI application that also to write

a letter to I.P. University to do the needful with copy to the applicant.”

[reproduced verbatim]

4. Aggrieved with non receipt of information, the Appellant filed the instant

Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in course of Hearing:

5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present.

Respondent: Ms. Suvarna Tushaba Shinde Ogale - PIO/Deputy Director(D), Delhi Jal

Board was present.

6. A written submissions dated 28.01.2026 has been received from the PIO/Deputy

Director (D), Delhi Jal Board, stating as under:

“In this regard, it is stated that the appellant had filed an RTI application

seeking a copy of the answer key of a departmental examination for the post of

Junior Assistant conducted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

(GGSIPU). The answer key and conduct of departmental examination are

matters pertaining to GGSIPU (Exam conducting body), which is a separate

public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the same had been

communicated to the appellant through reply given above.”

7. A letter dated 10.06.2022 is annexed with the aforementioned written

submission whereby the Appellant had been advised to contact the Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) to obtain the requisite information.

Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/125424 Page 2 of 3

2 / 4

Decision

8. Perusal of the records reveals that the instant Second Appeal is time barred

considering that the RTI Application was filed on 31.03.2022 and the Second Appeal

was filed over two years later, i.e. on 21.05.2024. The Appellant has sought

condonation of delay, on account of family problems. The information sought by the

Appellant relates to his own examination organized by DJB for promotion to the post

of Junior Assistant. Since the examination was conducted by the Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University on behalf of DJB, which is a separate public authority, the

Respondent - DJB advised the Appellant to approach the University. During the course

of hearing, on being asked by the Commission, the PIO, DJB admitted that since the

examination was conducted on behalf of DJB, the information sought by the Appellant

could b