Central Information Commission
D. R. Arya vs Directorate Of Education on 20 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2018/115847
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/159114
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/174267
CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/100579
CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/100179
Shri D. R. Arya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/O/o. the Principal/Manager, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Lady Irwin Girls Senior Secondary School
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. PIO/Dy. Director of Education-(Cent.)
Directorate of Education
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
3. PIO/Asstt. Director of Education-(ASB),
Directorate of Education (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
4. PIO/Officiating H.O.S., Lady Irwin Senior
Secondary School (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
5. PIO/O/o. the Principal/H.O.S., R.M., Arya
Girls Senior Secondary School(Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)
Shri Pramod Kumar, DDE
Shri R.C.Bhardwaj, Manager
Ms. Asita Singh, Vice Principal
Shri G.RamaKirpal, Vice Principal
Shri PrabhatKatharia, S.O.
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2019
Date of Decision : 19.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
115847 13.11.2017 18.12.2017 21.12.2017 --
159114 10.07.2018 25.07.2018 27.07.2018 --
Page 1 of 6
174267 01.11.2018 06.11.2018 28.11.2018 --
100579 20.10.2018 24.11.2018 29.11.2018 --
100179 13.09.2018 -- 25.10.2018 --
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/115847
Appellant vide RTI application dated 13.11.2017 sought information on eight
points regarding appointment of Lab Assistant 2003 in Aided Lady Irwin Girls
Sr. Sec. School, Canning road, New Delhi. In this respect, he sought following
information:-
1. How many post of Lab Assistants were advertised in 2003 and selection
was made in 2003 category wise? Provide the details.
2. Provide the list of candidates by wherein were applied for above said and
list of candidates who were present/attended the interview on
30.06.2003.
3. Provide the copies of marksheet class X, XII and B.SC of those applicants
who attended the interview on 30.06.2003 for above said post.
4. Provide the copy of sheets on which the selection board awarded marks for
academic qualification and interview to each candidates who attended the
interview on 30.06.2003. Etc.
Lady Irwin Senor Sec. School vide letter dated 18.12.2017 stated as follows:-
"The information sought by the applicant is part of very old records
and voluminous and not easily traceable. Therefore, the applicant
may see the records available in school".
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.12.2017.Feeling
aggrieved over non adjudication by the FAA, the Appellant approached the
Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and heard. Appellant submits that information is not provided to him. He alleges that it is the responsibility of the School authorities to keep the records of appointment etc. intact which was approved from Directorate of Education but the PIO and FAA have deliberately avoided in giving this vital information The Respondent submits that information sought pertains to the year 2003 and they are not able to trace the record.
Decision After hearing the parties and perusal of records, the Commission directs the PIO to conduct a thorough search of the records once again and furnish information to the Appellant. In case the relevant records are not traceable, the PIO shall file a duly notarized Affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper before the Commission, certifying on oath the fact of non traceability of the records in question, with a copy marked to the Appellant. The directions shall be complied within 3 weeks of from the date of issue of this order.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Page 2 of 6CIC/DIRED/A/2018/159114 Appellant vide RTI application dated 10.07.2018 sought information on five points regarding appointment of Lab Assistant 2003 in Aided Lady Irwin Girls Sr. Sec. School, Canning road, New Delhi. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Certified of those copies which were submitted by the candidates for their academic qualifications class X, XII, B.SC and experience by the candidates who attended interview held on 30.06.2003.
2. Certified copy of marking scheme which was applied by the school for scrutinized/awarded marks those candidates who attended the interview on 30.06.2003 for the above said post.
3. Certified copies minutes of meeting of staff selection board showing marks awarded to each candidates for academic qualification experience and interview separately on 30.06.2003 for the above said post.
4. Certified copy of list of rejected candidates with reasons for above said post.
5. List of selected candidates with name and ID No. selected on 30.06.2003.
PIO/Lady Irwin Senior Secondary School vide letter dated 25.07.2018 stated that said information sought through RTI, are not traceable at this end till date, hence the same cannot be provided.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 27.07.2018. Feeling aggrieved over non adjudication by the FAA, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and heard. Appellant submits that information sought vide RTI application is not provided to him. He further states that PIO has replied to his RTI application that records are not traceable whereas the FAA has rejected the RTI application under section 8(i) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 11.11.2019. The Respondent submits that information sought pertains to the year 2003 and they are not able to trace the record.
Decision:
The Commission cannot agree with the arbitrary stance of the FAA in as much as it is found to be wholly incorrect and is therefore set aside. It is noted that first the information was denied on the basis of records not available and after that FAA has rejected the appeal under Section 8(i). It is pertinent to mention here that FAA/ Prof. S. Bhalla has misquoted the section for refusing information under the RTI Act; the correct Section being Sec. 8(1)(j). The Commission directs the Respondent to provide a list of selected candidates only. Commission directs the concerned PIO to conduct a thorough search of the records once again and either furnish information to the Appellant, under intimation to the Commission or file a duly notarized Affidavit on a non- judicial stamp paper before the Commission certifying on oath the fact of non Page 3 of 6 traceability of the records in question, with a copy marked to the Appellant. The directions shall be complied within 3 weeks of from the date of issue of this order. The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/174267 Appellant vide RTI application dated 01.11.2018 sought information on three points regarding appointment of Lab Assistant which was made in Feb. 2004 in Govt. Aided school Shri Hanuman Mandir Sec. School, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Copy of recruitment rules existing in 2004 for the above said post which were followed by the above said school.
2. Copy of marking scheme which was applied by the school for awarding qualification and experience marks for selection on above said post to those applicants who attend the interview.
3. Certified copy of minutes of meeting Staff Selection Committee on date of interview by which selection were made for above said post signed by the Staff Selection Committee members.
PIO/Shri Hanuman Mandir Sec. School, Shakti Nagar, Delhi vide letter dated 06.11.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Another reply received from PIO/Shri Hanuman Mandir Sec. School vide letter dated 11.12.2018 furnished point wise information.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.11.2018. Feeling aggrieved over non adjudication by the FAA, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the PIO(North) vide letter dated 04.11.2019 in this case which indicates that FAO was passed on 05.12.2018.
Both parties are present and heard. The Appellant submits that information has been received from the concerned Departments in the above said appeal and expresses satisfaction over the information provided by the Respondent.
Decision:
Under the circumstances, it is noted that information, as permissible under the RTI Act and available with the Respondent has been provided to the Appellant. Accordingly, no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/100579 Appellant vide RTI application dated 20.10.2018 sought information on three points regarding appointment of Lab Assistant which was made in between December 2001 and July 2003 in Govt. Aided school RM Arya Girls Sr. Sec., Delhi. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Copy of recruitment rules for the above said post existing in 2001 and 2003 as per directions of the Directorate of Education Delhi.Page 4 of 6
2. Copy of marking scheme which was applied by the above said school for awarding marks to those candidates who were attended interview for the selection of above said post in between December 2001 and July 2003.
3. Certified copy of minutes of meeting Staff Selection Board on the day and date of the interview by which selection were made in between December 2001 and July 2003 for the above said posts showing the marks awarded to each applicant by the board.
PIO/RM Arya Sec. School, Delhi vide letter dated 24.11.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 29.11.2018. Feeling aggrieved over non adjudication by the FAA, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the R.M. Arya Girls Senior Sec. School vide letter dated 11.11.2019.
Both parties are present and heard. The Appellant submits that information has been received from the concerned Departments in the above said appeal and expresses satisfaction over the information provided by the Respondent.
Decision:
Under the circumstances, it is noted that information, as permissible under the RTI Act and available with the Respondent has been provided to the Appellant. Accordingly, no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/100179 Appellant vide RTI application dated 13.09.2018 sought information on nine points regarding the appointments of Lab Assistant in Aided Lady Irwin Girls Sr. Sec. School, Canning road, New Delhi. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Provide the certified copies of pages of the registers where the said records were last recorded to have existed.
2. Name and designation of the officer of school office who has last custody of the appointments records of Lab Assistant.
3. Date when PIO's office first came to know that the appointments records to Lab Assistant missing/not traceable.
4. Details of efforts made to trace out the above said records till date PIO's reply.
5. Certified copies of FIR filed for the not traceable of above said records. In case of FIR is not filed till date PIO's reply to this application, the reason for it be also made known to Appellant. Etc. APIO/PIO vide letter dated 17.09.2018 transferred the RTI application to the Principal Lady Irwin Girls Sr. Sec. School, Canning road, New Delhi under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 25.10.2018. Feeling aggrieved over non adjudication by the FAA, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 5 of 6Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and heard. Appellant submits that information is not provided to him. He alleges that it is the responsibility of the School authorities to keep the records of appointment etc. intact which was approved from Directorate of Education but the PIO and FAA have deliberately avoided in giving this vital information The Respondent submits that information sought pertains to the year 2003 and they are not able to trace the record.
Decision After hearing the parties and perusal of records, Commission directs the concerned PIO to conduct a thorough search of the records once again and either furnish information to the Appellant, under intimation to the Commission or file a duly notarized Affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper before the Commission certifying on oath the fact of non traceability of the records in question, with a copy marked to the Appellant. The directions shall be complied within 3 weeks of from the date of issue of this order.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6