Central Information Commission
Krishan Mittal vs Department Of School Education And ... on 20 March, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/CC/C/2014/900020/MP
Complainant : Shri Krishan Mittal, Mansa.
Public Authority : Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of School Education & Literacy,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 03rd March, 2017
Date of Decision : 17th March, 2017
Present
Complainant : Present through VC.
Respondent : Shri H.M. Sonkusare, US & Shri Anil Kumar,
ASO at CIC.
RTI application : 26.08.2013
CPIO's reply : 25.09.2013,17.10.2013
First Appeal : Nil
FAA's order : 24.10.2013, 02.01.2014
Complaint : 09.04.2014
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
1. The complainant, Shri Krishan Mittal submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi seeking information in pursuance with the RTE Amendment Act 2012, the number of differently abled students studying in India; number of such students who were not enrolled in schools; number of vacant posts of special educators/other assisting professional for such students; number of vacant posts in Central Government aided schools in India; the steps taken by Department to implement RTE Amendment Act 2012; the number of schools providing barrier free CIC/CC/C/2014/900020/MP 1 environment in India; number of special schools and integrated education schools; the name of the academic authority to appoint special educators; the number of special educators recruited in India since January 2012; the directions given to States by the Schools Education Department to States and UTs to implement the RTE Amendment Act, 2012 etc. through ten points.
2. The CPIO, Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) provided information on point 1, 6 and on remaining points informed the complainant that information sought did not pertain to IEDSS Section. In the meantime, the complainant filed an online appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA (IEDSS) vide order dated 24.10.2013 provided further information. The FAA (EE) vide order dated 02.01.2014 observed that the appellant had been given the web link which provides overall situation across the country. However, specific information sought by the applicant had not been provided and directed the CPIO to provide point-wise reply. The CPIO (EE.XI) vide letter dated 17.10.2013 sent a point-wise reply to the complainant, in compliance with the directions of the FAA.
3. Being aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO the complainant filed the instant complaint before the Commission on the grounds of having been provided with vague and misleading information.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that he sought information in pursuance with the RTE Amendment Act 2012 about the number of differently abled students who were studying in India; number of such students who were not enrolled in schools; number of vacant posts of special educators/other assisting professional for such students etc. The CPIO had provided misleading information on point 2 relating to number of differently abled students who were not enrolled in schools; the CPIO had also not provided the number of vacant posts of special educators and number of vacant posts in Central Government aided schools in India as sought at point 3 and 4, and the copy of notification about the Academic Authority to appoint special educators CIC/CC/C/2014/900020/MP 2 under the RTE Amendment Act with reference to point 8. He stated that he was interested in the information and requested the Commission to treat the instant complaint as second appeal. The Commission acceded to the request of the complainant and henceforth the complainant is called the appellant. The respondents reiterated the CPIOs of IEDSS and EE had provided information to the appellant as available. They confirmed that State/UTs concerned appoint special educators and the information sought at point 3 and 4 was not maintained by them in material form.
5. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the number of vacant posts of special educators/other assisting professionals for differently abled students in India, to the appellant with reference to point 3 and copy of letter dated 17.10.2013 again within four weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority on remaining points. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar CIC/CC/C/2014/900020/MP 3 Address of the parties:
Shri Krishan Mittal, The Central Public Information Officer, Opp. Mour Dharamshala, Ministry of Human Resource Water Works Road, Development, Department of School Mansa-151505 (Punjab) Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.
The First Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of School
Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhavan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110001.
CIC/CC/C/2014/900020/MP 4