Central Information Commission
Smt.P. Urmila Devi vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 3 August, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001600AD
Date of Hearing : August 3, 2011
Date of Decision : August 3, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Ms. P Urmila
H.No. 105/14, Old Pinto Park,
Air Force Station, Palam,
New Delhi
The Appellant was present through Shri G. R. Moorthy.
Respondents
Government of NCT of Delhi
Smt. Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School
1, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi110002
Represented by: Shri S. Eswar Prasad, PIO, Ms. K Durga, APIO and Ms. V. Satya Darshini, H.C.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001600AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed her RTIapplication dated 05.03.2011 with the PIO, Dte. of Education (ACT branch) , Delhi, seeking information regarding appointments made in Andhra Education Society schools. Since the subject matter of information sought pertains to the Andhra Education Society, the PIO transferred this application to the Principal/PIO of the Andhra Education Society School ie. l Smt. Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School run by the said society. The Vice Principal, Andhra Education Society, accordingly, on 29.03.2011, informed the Applicant that since the matter is sub judice, the information would be given in the court. The Applicant, aggrieved with this reply, filed her 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 05.04.2011 and received a reply (dated 18.05.2011) of Vice Principal through which the pointwise information was furnished to the Appellant. The Appellant then filed the present petition before the Commission on 15.06.2011 calling the information furnished to her 'unsatisfactory'.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant' representative, while raising the issue of noncompliance of Section 4(1) of the RTIAct by the Respondents, also alleged that the public authority has appointed "outsiders" as PIO and AA and thereby has violated the provisions of the RTIAct. He also complained that the RTI application was responded to by the APIO instead of the PIO. Further, according to him,. the information relating to item 6 (i.e. list of employees of all categories of regular, temporary etc.) has not been supplied to him. The Respondents countered this submission by stating that they (AA and PIO) are not the outsiders and that very much a part of the management of the public authority. The Respondent PIO stated that he is in fact the Manager of the School and hence not an outsider. The Respondents however, admitted that the Smt. Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School does not have as yet any website as advised in Section 4(1) of the RTIAct and that action in this regard is being contemplated. He explained that the APIO in his school only responds when the PIO is out of town for any reason and that too after informing the PIO. As regards the Appellant's complaint that she has not received information in respect of item no.6, the Respondents handed over the complete information, which they brought with them, to the Appellant during the hearing.
3. Upon hearing the submissions above and on perusing the records, following directions are given:
a) The public authority shall, within 6 weeks of receipt of this order, ensure that the work of creating the official website which is in progress is completed and place all required details, as advised in Section 4(1) of the RTIAct, on it. A compliance report in this regard as also of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act may be furnished to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant.
b) The PIO shall make arrangements for putting up a notice board in the office of the Principal of the school on which the daily attendance of the teachers could be displayed. Time -
4 weeks of receipt of this order.
c) The PIO shall file a written statement with the Commission --with a copy to the Appellant--
describing their 'terms of services' of the PIO and the Appellate Authority in the school especially in the context of the Appellant's allegation that the Respondents are "outsiders". He shall also enclose therewith copies of supporting documents. Time - 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
4. As regards Appellant's complaint that she has been furnished a reply by the APIO instead of the PIO, the PIO is advised to be careful in future since delegating the statutory authority vested in him to a junior official will tantamount to violation of law.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Ms. P Urmila H.No. 105/14, Old Pinto Park, Air Force Station, Palam, New Delhi
2. The Appellate Authority Government of NCT of Delhi Smt. Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School 1, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi110002
3. Public Information Officer Government of NCT of Delhi Smt. Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School 1, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi110002
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/ Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.