SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 9955

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
DR SANAJI SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Education – Respondent
CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106/MOHRD



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/DDUCO/A/2024/604107/MOHRD+

CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106/MOHRD Dr. Sanjai Sharma … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO:

Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College, …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 23.10.2023 FA : 14.12.2023 SA : 30.01.2024 CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 23.06.2025 The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.

Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R Second Appeal No. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604107/MOHRD

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1) Name of employees (Teaching/Non-Teaching) to whom NOC for applying outside of parent employment have been issued during the period January 22 to December 22 and number NOC issued to each employee.

2) List of permanent non-teaching and contractual staff with their designation appointed before 2019 and presently working at their position.

3) Copy of notifications issued to non-teaching staff to mark attendance after 1st January 2019 to till date.

4) 4. Attendance records (in a compact disk/ paper form as available) of employees asked at point number 2 for the following periods:

a) 1st January 2019 to 31st January 2019.

b) 1st Feb2022 to 15th Feb 2022 c) 1st May 2023 to 15th May 2023 d) 1st July 2023 to 10th July 2023 e) 1st Oct 2023 to 10th Oct 2023

5) Copy of rule(s)/norm under which no more than four application can be forwarded for outside employment in a year.

Second Appeal No. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604106/MOHRD

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1) Copy of notification of grievance committee issued for non-teaching staff from year 2016 to till date, consisting name of members.

2) Copy of communication details with members regarding inclusion of their name in the committee for the period mentioned at point number 1.

3) Copy of status/action taken on application submitted by undersigned, in the office vide diary no. 99 dated 18/08/2022.

4) Copy of notifications issued by the college for opening college for conduction of theory/practical classes in complete physical mode during end period of covid

19 that is notifications issued after October, 2021.

5) Copy showing action taken/status on the grievance submitted by undersigned to the Liaison Officer (Dr. Rakesh Yadav), Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College (University of Delhi) vide email dated 13/4/2023 and reminder thereupon dated

27/06/2023.

6) Copy of communication details between Liaison Officer and other authorities of the college on the grievance submitted to Liaison Officer by undersigned.

3. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeals dated 14.12.2023. The FAA’s order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 30.01.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kulvinder Singh, PIO and Mr.

Subhash Agarwal, RTI Consultant, attended the hearing in-person.

6. In file no. CIC/DDUCO/A/2024/604107, the appellant inter alia submitted that no reply to the RTI application has been received till the date of filing present Second appeal to the Commission. He stated that improper reply has been provided by the CPIO through their written submission dated 10.06.2025. He objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO on point no. 1 and 3 and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds as he had sought number of employees to whom NOC was issued and copy of notification. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top