Central Information Commission
Sh. Madan Mohan Tiwari vs Directorate Of Education, Govt. Of Nct ... on 30 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002233/5322
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002233
Appellant : Sh. Madan Mohan Tiwari,
H. NO. 35, Tyagi Mohalla,
Chatapur,
New Delhi-110 074
Respondent : Mr. Anjum Masood
Public Information officer & ADE
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
RTI Cell (Room No. 220)
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054
RTI application filed on : 12/04/2009
PIO replied : 15/05/2009
First Appeal filed on : 20/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 26/06/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 03/09/2009
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding the classes allocated to HOS and the teaching diaries issued to them. The Appellant sought information about the methods of keeping records in teaching diaries by all HOS and the teaching plans prepared, result of the classes taught and their methods of teaching and demanded some photocopies of the pages of teaching diaries.
S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply 1. Provide photocopy of any circular issued regarding Teachers are supposed to
reasons for issuing teaching dairies to teachers and plan their work in advance what justified motto behind it in every Govt. and to record it in the diary Middle, Secondary or Senor Secondary schools, for record. School Branch run by the Directorate of Education (Govt. of NCT has not issued any circular of Delhi. in this regard.
2. Photocopy of any circular issued regarding Such plan helps a teacher necessity to prepare a weekly teaching plan for for proper transaction of teacher before going to the class. subjection. No circular is issued in this regard.
3. Photocopy of any circular issued regarding action This information is not taken against the teacher fails to prepare and note available in School Branch. weekly teaching plan in the teaching dairy issued to No circular has also been him/her. issued.
4. How much expenditure has been done by the Does not pertain to School department on purchasing of teaching diaries in Branch. financial year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009? Provide a compiled data of total money spend year wise only and not school wise necessarily.
5. Provide photocopy of any circular issued regular This information is not teaching periods being allocated to all the available in School Branch. Headmasters, Vice-Principals or Principals, No circular has also been heading each and every Government Middle, issued. Secondary or Senior schools, run by the Directorate of Education.
6. Number of periods mandatory to take in a week for Not available in School Headmaster, Vice-Principals or Principals, heading Branch. the Government Middle, Secondary or Senior Secondary Schools, run by the Directorate of Education. Provide photocopy of any circular issued in this regard.
7. Are these HOS (Head of the School) directed to Not available in School take regular teaching periods allocated to them? Branch. Provided the photocopy of the circular issued in this regard.
8. The Photocopy of any circular issued regarding No such order has been whether it is necessary for a Head of the School to issued. write weekly teaching diary if he/she is allocated teaching periods.
9. Are these HOS being issued teaching diaries also to Not available in School prepare weekly teaching plan to note down in their Branch. teaching diaries?
10. Provide number of schools to which the teaching Does not pertain to School diaries were issued to HOS in previous years 2005, Branch. 2006, 2007, 2008 and current session 2009, 2010.
11. Are all HOS preparing teaching plan and writing This information is not weekly teaching diaries like PRT, TGT, and PGT available in School Branch. etc. before going in their respective classes?
12. Do the HOS take charge as class teacher also? Give Not available in School the number of those HOS who are taking charge as Branch. class teacher in 2009-2010. Give the number of schools.
13. Are these HOS signing in the monitor diary also Does not pertain to School when they go in their respective classes? Branch.
14. Are these classes allocated to the HOS being reelected in the timetable of the school?
15. Are these HOS demonstrating science practical to students if a science period is allocated to them?
16. Are these HOS keeping the older teaching diaries and timetables of periods in their schools as old record? What is the life period of the teaching diaries and timetables as consumable or non- consumable records?
17. Number of teachers placed under suspension or terminated from job for not maintaining proper teaching diaries during the period of Mr. Vijay Kumar as Director of Education? Provide the name and their schools of posting.
18. Same as question no.17.
19. By which circular, order, notification or any No such information is official letter issued these HOS were kept available in School Branch. exempted from writing teaching diaries to keep the records of the periods taken by them? Provide the photocopy of the official letter issued in this regard to keep them exempted from writing teaching diaries.
20. Give the name and the designation of the officer Concern Head of the School responsible for monitoring the proper implementation of the guidelines on teaching periods and teaching diaries in the Directorate of Education (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
21. To whom the public may file a complaint if any Concerned DDE of the Head of the school is not taking /not taken the districts. classes allocated to him/her and have not prepared teaching plan duly shown in school time table? 22 What departmental punishments are prescribed for Does not pertain to School not taking teaching periods and not keeping record Branch. in teaching diaries?
23. Provide the photocopy of all the pages of teaching diaries written by Headmasters, Vice-Principals or Principals, hading these Government Middle, Secondary or Senior Secondary schools, run by The Directorate of Education (GNCTD) in the academic session 2004-5, 2005-6, 2006-7, 2007-8, 2008-09, 2009-10 of the following schools- a. Govt. Co-Ed Secondary School, Maandi, (school id 1923064), Distt South, New Dlehi 110047 b. Govt. Boys' Secondary School No.-3 (school id 1923070) Mehrauli, Distt South New Delhi-110030 c. Govt. Co-Ed Secondary School, Kanganheri, (school id 1821034) Distt Southwest-B, New Delhi
24. Whether the Deptt satisfied that the aforesaid HOS have taken their allocated periods and properly maintained their teaching diaries?
25. Provide the photocopy of the pages of the service book of the aforesaid HOS if the Deptt marks any punishment on negligence of duty endorsed to them as a Govt. servant if any.
Submission from PIO:
Submission/Comments letter dated 10/09/2009 received on 15/09/2009 from PIO By the PIO (HQ), Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi, Application was transferred on 13/05/2009 to DDE (All Distts.) for Q.No 1, and to DDE(South) for Q.No. 5, 6, and 7. Application was also forwarded to GOC Branch vide letter dated 21/04/2009.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete and incorrect information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA stated that information as available had already been provided to the Appellant, which was adequate and satisfactory.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Misleading, incorrect, and incomplete information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present;
Appellant: Mr. Madan Mohan Tiwari;
Respondent: Mr. Anjum Masood,Public Information officer & ADE; The then PIO Mr. Sameer C. Minz had stated against a number of queries that "information does not pertains to school branch" It was his responsibility to obtain the information from Planning and Vigilance Departments and provide it to the Appellant which he failed to do. The present PIO Mr. Anjum Masood has obtained the information and provided it to the Appellant. The information on query 23 has not been provided and the Present PIO Mr. Anjum Masood is directed to obtain the information from the respective Schools and provide it to the Appellant before 25 November 2009.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed The Present PIO Mr. Anjum Masood is directed to obtain the information from the respective School and provide it to the Appellant before 25 November 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO Mr. Sameer C. Minz within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO Mr. Sameer C. Minz is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 11 December 2009 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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 30 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj CC:
To, Mr. Sameer C. Minz, VATO & Tax Officer, Through Dy. Commissioner Administration, Bikri Kar Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi