Central Information Commission
Smt.Lajwanti Juneja vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 8 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001773/13927
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001773
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Lajwanti Juneja,
I-391, Jhangir Puri,
New Delhi- 110033
Respondent : Mrs. Kanta Kumar
PIO & Additional Director (Education-I) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Education Department (HQ), 15th floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002 RTI application filed on : 11/03/2011 PIO replied : 27/04/2011, 04/05/2011, 07/06/2011 First Appeal filed on : 18/04 /2011 First Appellate Authority order : 23/05/2011 Second Appeal received on : 30/06/2011 The Appellant had sought the following information related to the Education Department.
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply PIO's Reply
1. Provide the copy of the It is related to The PIO replied only for the 1st query that as procedure for declaring any Administration branch. per schedule 11 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, the scheduling of the number of teachers teacher as surplus under the should be done. If the no. of teachers exceeds corporation and the relevant the no. of student in any university then the conditions for the issuance of teacher becomes surplus. The copy of the circulars, orders or directions schedule is enclosed.
2. Provide the certified copy of Appointment of Related to Administration Department the circulars or orders or Teachers in aided directions issued by the school is made as per corporation to a grant school norms Delhi school for the admission of teachers. Education Act 1973.
(copy enclosed)
3. Provide the direction order for In practice a teaches in Same as above declaration of a teacher of aided primary school, is grant university to be surplus. declared surplus due to less number of children than the specific number of children minimum i.e. 25 number of children in a class/section.
4. What is the maximum time There is no provision of Same as above Page 1 of 4 period for keeping a teacher at deputation of teachers deputation of a grant working in aided university? Provide the primary school. Hence certified copy of the direction question of supply of orders in this regard. copy of tenure of departure does not arise.
5. Provide a certified copy of the Mrs. Sudhesh Kumari is Same as above documents in relation to the working in their school appointment of teachers, Mrs. at present and is no Poonam Sangwan and Mrs. longer working in MCD Sudesh Kumari Sanatan Dharm schools in diverted in Elementary School Gandhi capacity. The Nagar, Shahadara in Delhi- appointment letter of 110032. Poonam Sangwan is attached.
6. Provide the certified copy of Copy of the order Same as above the document of the above regarding their mentioned teachers in relation appointment in divested to their declaration of being capacity is enclosed surplus teacher. herewith.
7. When the above mentioned There was no vacancy Same as above teachers were declared surplus, of teachers rather there what was the status of the was surplus staff. vacancies in that school?
Provide the detail of number of vacancies, designation and approved designation.
8. Was there any other No teacher was Same as above appointment after the appointed after that.
declaration of above mentioned teachers as surplus? If yes, then provide the certified copy of the appointment related documents or orders.
9. In what schools the The information is Same as above appointments of the above enclosed herewith mentioned teachers from 2003- 2004 till now and till what time they were appointed?
10. In what school the above The information is Same as above mentioned teachers are enclosed herewith working now and what is the present condition of their service condition?
11. If the teachers are adjusted Copy of absorption of Same as above permanently in the corporation Mrs. Poonam sangwan then provide the certified copy is enclosed herwith. of the related order. Provide the related document of such an order by the corporation commissioner.
Page 2 of 412. Provide the certified copy of Information is enclosed Same as above the admission of the students herewith and teacher each year, from the date of appointment of the above mentioned teacher in Elementary School Gandhi Nagar
13. How many teachers were Only three teachers Same as above declared surplus other then the above mentioned teacher from the year 2003 till now? Provide the list along with details.
14. If the teachers mentioned in list Copy of order in respect Same as above of Query No. 3 have been of Mrs. Poonam given permanently appointed Sangwan is enclosed then provide the copy of the and no other among order issued. three divested teachers has been absorbed up till now.
15. Provide the detail of the No Reply Same as above vacancies of the assistant teacher in any other grant school after the year 2003-04 till now.
16. Provide the list of the No Reply Same as above appointment of the assistant teacher, if any, in any other grant school after the year 2003-04 till now.
PIO's Reply:
The PIO replied only for the 1st query that as per schedule 11 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, the scheduling of the number of teachers should be done. If the no. of teachers exceeds the no. of student in any university then the teacher becomes surplus. The copy of the schedule is enclosed.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant filed the FAA when he did not receive any information from the PIO even after the time span of 30 days.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA ordered that clear and legible copies of the two teachers should be again sent to the Appellant with original stamp and signature and information regarding Q. No. 15 and 16 should be sent to the Appellant within 4 weeks time and also directed the AD-I/PIO and DDE (Coord/RTI/Grants) to ensure complete information and disposed off the appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant is not satisfied and still seeks complete information and is agitated by the delay of disposal of information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. S. K. Pandey representing Ms. Lajwanti Juneja;Page 3 of 4
Respondent: Mrs. Kanta Kumar, PIO & Additional Director (Education-I);
The PIO has given certain information but the Appellant points out certain deficiencies as follows: 1- Letters of appointment of Mrs. Poonam Sangwan and Mrs. Sudesh Kumari and any other letters relating to the appointment.
2- Query-6: Specific information will be provided. 3- Query-7: The sanction strength of teachers and the number of teachers in the school. 4- Query-9: Specific information will be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as listed above to the Appellant before 30 August 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 08 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (NS) Page 4 of 4