New Delhi, March 3 The Central Information Commission has directed Sri Venkateswara College of Delhi University to provide information, citing a "baseless" denial under the Right to Information Act in a case involving allegations of recruitment favoritism and corruption.
However, the college has stated that there was "no corruption involved" and that appointments were made strictly in accordance with Delhi University rules.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi observed in a recent order that the response of the college's public information officer (PIO) to certain key queries was "not in accordance with the spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005".
The appellant, Jawahar Singh, had alleged "corrupt practices" in the recruitment process, claiming that ineligible candidates were appointed to positions such as upper division clerk (UDC) and others, and that some staff were removed under a "pick-and-choose policy".
He further alleged that the college favored candidates from a particular state, which he claimed was against Delhi University norms.
During the hearing, the PIO denied the allegations, stating that "all staff recruitments are conducted in accordance with the norms and regulations prescribed by the university" and that "there is no corruption involved, as alleged by the appellant".
The PIO also apologized for the delayed RTI response, saying it was unintentional.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the denial of certain queries in a one-line response stating "Question not defined under Section 2(f)" without citing any exemption clause was "found to be baseless".
Regarding the query seeking a complete list of newly recruited staff, the CIC observed that such information "should ideally be available in the public domain in terms of Section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005", adding that the figures provided "do not adequately answer the appellant's query".
Section 4(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, mandates proactive disclosure of information by public authorities to minimize requests.
The CIC also said that regarding recruitment rules, the PIO was "supposed to have invited the appellant's attention to the specific hyperlink from which the rules/regulations for recruitment could be accessed, which was missing in the PIO's reply".
Allowing the second appeal, the Commission directed the PIO to "revisit the contents" of the relevant queries and provide a "revised and updated response along with a copy of the relevant information and a specific URL path" within one week.