Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mrram Kumarverma vs Gnctd on 12 February, 2015

            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
               (Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)


              Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
                                      Information Commissioner




                                       CIC/SA/A/2013/900016




                            Ram Kumar Verma v. CPIO, DDE
                                      Important Dates and time taken:



   RTI:  09.07.2013                   PIO   Reply   (After   FA):  Time: 58 days
                                      07.09.2013

   FAA: 19.08.2013                    FAO:                                   Time: 

   SA: 01.11.2013                     Hearing: 27.01.2015                    Decision: 12­02­2015

   Result: Appeal Disposed of. 




Parties Present:



   The appellant is present.  The public authority is represented by Mr. Jagdish Parsad 



and Mr. Atul Jaiswal. 




CIC/SA/A/2013/900016                                                                                Page 1
 Information sought

:

1. Appellant through his RTI application has sought for information in relation to  file submitted for confirmation of teachers in Z­VI of Dist. N.E Namely; How  many   teachers   were   recommended   for   confirmation   of   their   posts   by   DPC  meeting   held   on   21.10.2011   &   21.01.2013;   After   DPC   recommendation   how  many   teachers   were   given   approval   for   confirmation   by   the   Competent  authority, if the teachers have completed the probation period of their services,  after   how   much   time   they   should   be   confirmed   and   got   order   declaring  probation and who is responsible for not confirming within time..etc Ground for First Appeal:

2. Non­furnishing of information by PIO within the prescribed period.

PIO response (After FA):

3. Para­wise reply provided to the appellant.

Ground For Second Appeal :

CIC/SA/A/2013/900016 Page 2

4. Information given after 30 days, was incomplete and wrong. The response that  there   was   no   record   of   DPC   meeting   on   21st  October   2011   is   misleading,  because the DPC recommended confirmation of certain teachers on that day  as   per   their   response  only.     Prayed  for   direction  to  PIO   to  furnish   full   and  complete information. 

Commissions Letter:

5. Commission on receipt of the appellants Second Appeal and after the perusal  of the records submitted before it, had issued a letter dated 14.10.2014 to the  PIO  requesting him to  explain  the  reasons for  not providing the information  sought  within 15 days. 

Decision:

6. Both   parties   made   their   submissions.     The   Commission   observes   that   the  appellant has been furnished the required information.  But he is not satisfied  as the minutes of the DPC held in 2013 were not supplied to him.  In response  CIC/SA/A/2013/900016 Page 3 to   this,   the   respondent   officer   submitted   that   the   relevant   record   is   not  traceable.   However, he  promised  that  they  will  do best efforts  to trace  the  record and supply the minutes to the appellant.  Accordingly, the Commission  directs the respondent authority to furnish the minutes of the DPC required by  the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 

7.  The appeal is disposed of. 

(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner True copy attensted (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar CIC/SA/A/2013/900016 Page 4

1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of Delhi Directorate of Education, North East District, RTI Cell Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi-110053

2. Shri Ram Kumar Verma, 159-D, DDA Flats, Manasrovar Park Shahdara, Delhi-110032 CIC/SA/A/2013/900016 Page 5