Central Information Commission
Mr.M R Gautam vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 June, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002374/12679
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002374
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. M .R Gautam
House No. 5/B Panchsheel
Bhavan Bank Colony
Mandoli Gali no. 8A
Delhi- 110092
Respondent : Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi
APIO & Principal
Kautilya Govt. Survodya Bal Vidyalaya (KGSBV)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education
Chiraj Enclave, Delhi - 1100048
RTI application filed on : 09/05/2010
PIO replied : 09/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 27/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 06/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 25/08/2010
Information sought
A. National Open School Study Centre Kautilya Govt School Bal Vidayalaya Chirag Delhi (1) Details of the money received from April 2002 to March 2007 for the Study centre & the money spend in each year.
(2) Name, Designation & office of the teachers appointed. (3) Details and copy of the receipt for the remuneration awarded to the coordinator from April 2002 to March 2007 B. For KSB Vidyalaya Chirag Enclave from April 2003 to March 2007 (1) For each year the employees recruited, their consolidated copies. (2) Name, School\office and designation of each employee. (3) Receipt Copy of the remuneration paid to the Invigilator Reply of the Public Information Officer:
1. All the money received in the month April 2002 to March 2007 has been sent to the NIOS office.
2. All the information has been sent to the NIOS office.
3. All the information has been sent to the NIOS office.
4. The copy of the receipt and other information for the invigilator are taken away by the Observer.
5. The copy of the receipt and other information for the invigilator are taken away by the Observer.
6. The copy of the receipt and other information for the invigilator are taken away by the Observer.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply furnished by the PIO DDC South says that the requisite information would be provided by NIOS and the PIO National Open School Noida states that the information would be furnished by the Study Centre itself.Page 1 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA requested the PIO to file First Appeal before the FAA (NIOS) as the information asked for pertains to NIOS (Ministry of H.R.D Government of India) A-31 Institutional Area sector 62, Noida UP.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No proper information furnished by the PIO.
Relevant Facts that emerged during the hearing on 11 October 2010: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Tej Prakash representing Mr. M .R Gautam;
Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, APIO & Principal;
"The appellant has sought certain information. The PIO has stated that the information is not with the Public Authority and that all the papers relating to the expenses are taken away by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) where these papers are also audited. The appellant has shown the Commission letters obtained from Ms. Anitha Nair, CPIO of NIOS in which she has stated that the details of these activities would be available with the coordinators and with the Directorate of Education. Thus there are two contrary statements before the Commission. The appellant has also produced before the Commission information provided by Ms. Anita Saita, DDE(South) & PIO giving similar information which has been sought in this application by the appellant.
The Commission is not able to determine where this information being sought by the appellant exists. Hence the Commission directs the Director of Education (Directorate of Education) and Regional Director (NIOS) to inquire where information sought in this RTI application is and inform the appellant and the Commission about this.
The Director of Education (Directorate of Education) and Regional Director (NIOS) are directed to inform the Commission where the information is before 15 November 2010. The Commission will then decide on this matter."
Decision announced on 3 June 2011:
The Director of Education has by his letter of 15 November communicated his findings after enquiring into the matter as follows:
"The National Institute of Open Schooling is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. As per the requests received from NIOS, the Directorate of Education allots them schools to run the Study/Examination Centers. The Principal of each school is appointed by NIOS as the Coordinator and he/she directly deals with NIOS without any intervention by the Directorate of Education. The norms for running the courses, the pattern of funding, submission of accounts etc is a matter between the Coordinator and the NIOS, in which Directorate of Education and its officers have no role to play.
The Coordinator maintains a separate bank account in which the funds received from the NIOS for running the Study & Examination Centers are maintained. The consolidated record in r/o the Personal Contact Programme as well as the Utilisation Certificate in r/o the funds utilized are submitted with the NIOS, at the end of each session.Page 2 of 3
I am given to understand that there are no guidelines/norms issued by NIOS with regard to maintenance of records by the Coordinators. However, when a government agency allots funds another government agency, it is implicit in such an arrangement that the hinds receiving agency is required to maintain records of funds received, the purpose for which the same has been spent etc. Coming to the present issue, the RTI application seeks details of money received and spent during a specific period and details of persons to whom payments were made. All the information should have been available with the Coordinator concerned.
The present incumbent (Coordinator) appeared before me and informed that he has been the Coordinator since May 2007 when he was posted as Principal in Kautilya SBV Chirag Enclave and all the records pertaining to his period are available with him. However, the record pertaining to the relevant period is neither available in school nor was handed over to him by his predecessor. He made personal efforts by contacting/writing to his predecessors to obtain the information and accordingly supplied the same to the appellant.
In the present case, the school Coordinator functions as a sub-agency of NJOS and, in fact, the RTI application should have been directed to NIOS authorities rather than the PlO of Directorate of Education, who has no role in the matter. It may also be appropriate that NIOS issues detailed guidelines to their Coordinators for maintenance of records pertaining to their operations/activities at the Examination/Study Centre level."
In view of this finding it is apparent that the records for the period required by the appellant are not available for the period before May 2007. This is indeed a sorry state of affairs. However, since the records are not in existence no information can be provided.
The Appeal disposed.
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 03 June 2011 (For any further correspondence on this matter, please mention the file number quoted above.) (VK) Page 3 of 3