Central Information Commission
Yotsna Dhurandher vs Directorate Of Education on 28 November, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal Nos.:-
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614356 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614361 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614366
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614374 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614380 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614382
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614383 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614652 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614655
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614657 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614346 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614349
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614353 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614606 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614639
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614610 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614615 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614617
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614618 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614621 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614627
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614631 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614634 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614636
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614641 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614587 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614644
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614651 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614709 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614714
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614560 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614575 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614698
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614702 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614706 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614690
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614694 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614695 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614762
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614764 CIC/DOEMP/A/2022/614377 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614717
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614734 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614747 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614748
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614720 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614722 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614725
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614727 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614729 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614557
CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614592 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614731 CIC/DIRED/A/2022/614567
Page 1 of 6
Ms. Annu Saini & 53 others
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The PIO/Dy. Director of Education
O/o The Deputy Director of Education,
Zone-XIII, North West, S.C.S.D SV Co-ed School Complex,
Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi - 110085
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.11.2022
Date of Decision : 28.11.2022
Date of RTI application 30.11.2021
CPIO's response 29.12.2021
Date of the First Appeal 24.01.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 19.02.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.03.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
ETC.
The CPIO vide letter dated 29.12.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 19.02.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-Page 2 of 6
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person (Adv. Manasi Bhushan; Shri Mayank Tomar) Respondent: Ms Sudha Singh DDE Z-13, Mr Tarun Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that an incomplete and vague reply has been furnished. She deposed that she works as a teacher in N.K. Bagrodia Public School (NKBPS), Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi - 34 and She had filed this RTI Application to seek information regarding her own salary statements/slips and service book records from the academic year 2014 onwards, copies of their leave register showing the due and availed leaves by her from the academic year 2014 and onwards, copies of records showing increments paid from the date of her joining in NKBPS till date, etc. When queried by the Commission about the reason for seeking this information she claimed that it is because of her and other teachers' exploitation by the school management despite having a fund of nearly Rs 17 crores. She said they faced many issues like unjust deduction of salaries to the tune of 10% from April 2020 till September 2021 and 15% for April 2021; Non tendering of Salary statements/slips along with service book records; Non-payment of Increments from July 2020 onwards and MACP from April 2017 onwards; Non-implementation of 7th CPC and Transport Allowance, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Child Education Allowance and all other allowances; Not providing Leaves including Covid Special Leaves along with medical facility to the teachers.
She further claimed that the Respondent authority has failed to provide even a single document despite being vested with the requisite power. With regard to points 1 to 5 of the RTI Application, the information is denied by stating required information is not maintained in this office. She claimed that it is a clear contravention of umpteen numbers of judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Commission (CIC) Page 3 of 6 stating that as per the law there are ample powers with the DoE to call for the requisite information from the schools. Additionally, for documents sought under points 6 to 11 of the RTI Application, DoE denied information by stating that the matter is deputed to DE Nominee, he said and alleged that to date no document/information/communication with regard to points 6 to 11 has been received.
Further, she took the reference of the case titled "Pratibha Sharma v. Public Information Officer [2018 SCC OnLine CIC 14991]" in which the Central Information Commission held that DoE has the power to direct schools to provide DoE Annual Confidential Reports, Service Books and alike documents of the Applicant.
She further alleged that the school has deliberately concealed the facts relating to funds available with its Trust / School wherein a net surplus of approx. Rs.17,07,60,217/- (Rupees Seventeen Crore Seven Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Seventeen Only) is there on record during the year 2017-18. Pertinently, the school has also deliberately failed to mention the components paid to the teachers and has rather vaguely stated that it has restored payment of full salary to its staff, she averred.
The Respondent vide letters dated 29.12.2021, had informed all Appellants that the information sought is not maintained in their office. Moreover, the information sought pertained to the private unaided school i.e N.K Bagrodia school sector- 9, Rohini Delhi. He submitted that as per the circular dated 01.11.2017, issued by the Dy. Director of Education (DDE) (PSB), transfer of RTI application to private unaided school is prohibited, as they are not a public authority as per section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005. He stated that O/o DDE had sent many emails and reminders to the school for resolving the payments of legitimate salaries to staff but instead of taking proper action, they had informed that due to the pandemic the financial health of the school has been crippled and the fee collection is not up to the mark. Moreover, the school claimed that it is undergoing a financial crunch because the parents had not paid the fees, the Respondent said added that as per rule 180 (1) of DSE&R 1973, information related to Budget estimates for the session, enrolment of students, staff statements, etc. can be collected from the unaided school. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.
Page 4 of 6The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 13.11.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought a copy of his service book and personal details/file which is maintained by the school but the school claimed that RTI is not applicable to Recognized Unaided Private Schools. The CPIO, DDE, took the same stand during the hearing. On a query asked by the Commission, the appellant stated that the school management was not transparent and not ready to show the records of the teachers working there. The Commission strongly observes that as an employee/former employee of the school, the appellant has every right to seek from her employers (the school) information about his service book, personal file, and any other information pertaining to his service. The Commission further notes that a School, whether it is a public authority or private body, has a duty under sections 4 and 8 of the Delhi Education Act 1973, to abide by the regulatory conditions of service, payment of salaries as prescribed for which the school has to maintain the records, which provide an inherent and implied right to information to their employees. Further, the Right to Education Act, 2009, also recognizes that the school is under an obligation to appoint eligible teachers and provide them with prescribed wages. This also reveals that it has given the inherent right to information to the teachers from their employers. If the appellant in his capacity as an ex-employee of the school has the right to information under any legislation such as the Delhi Education Act, that will fall under the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act which gives the PIO, Appellate authority and the Central Information Commission, power to enforce her right to information. The Commission observes that the exploitation of teachers by private school management has become so rampant in society that it raises serious questions about the school education system. Therefore, it is incumbent on the enforcement system responsible for the implementation of regulations in the private school sector to act with missionary zeal and enforce regulations and in the process even explore strong legal options to stop the exploitation of the school staff thus restoring order in the sector. Schools with Page 5 of 6 unacceptable irregularities including rampant profiteering and disdain for regulations and norms should even be derecognized. If the appellant's claim that the trust running the said school has Rs 17 crore funds is true then it falls in a worse category because it is exploiting teachers despite its good financial health.
In view of the above, the Commission issues a Show Cause Notice to Ms. Sudha Singh, DDE, Zone - 13 and seeks her explanations as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act as well as disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against her for denying the information without exercising complete legal powers against the School, along with the comments of their First Appellate Authorities, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add.
Furthermore, the Commission observes that pursuant to the judgments titled as Mehjabin Kousar Vs PIO (2018 SCC Online CIC 1148), Ms. Sadhna Dixit Vs. Dte. of Education (F. No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000658-SA) and Poorna Prajna Public School Vs. CIC (2009 SCC Online Del 3077), it is clear that DoE has ample power to collect documents sought by the appellant from the Private Recognized Unaided School and provide the same to the appellant. Therefore, DoE's directed to provide all the documents sought by the appellant in her RTI application in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 28.11.2022 Page 6 of 6