Kirti Mohan Gaur vs Directorate Of Education on 5 March, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kirti Mohan Gaur vs Directorate Of Education on 5 March, 2021

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                              के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:    CIC/DIRED/A/2019/600376

 Kirti Mohan Gaur                                        .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनतम
 PIO,
 Section Officer-(HQ), Directorate of
 Education (Government of NCTof Delhi),
 Room No.-220, R.T.I. Cell, Old Secretariat,
 Delhi-110054.

 2. Public Information Officer under RTI
 Assistant Director of Education-(E-IV),
 Directorate of Education (Government of
 NCT of Delhi), Establishment-IV Branch, Room
 No.-11-B, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
                                                         ...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   16-10-2018
  CPIO replied on                   :   05-11-2018
  First appeal filed on             :   01-12-2018
  First Appellate Authority order   :   31-12-2019
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   Nil
  Date of Hearing                   :   05-03-2021
  Date of Decision                  :   05-03-2021


            lwpuk vk;qDr            :                 Jh हीरालाल सामररया
         INFORMATION COMMISSIONER: Shri Heeralal Samariya

 Information sought

The Appellant sought informationregarding following 03 points:

1. Number of non joiner candidates in UR and SC category against the postcode 192/14 (TGT Computer Science).

Page 1 of 4

2. Number of resigner candidates in UR and SC categoryagainst the postcode 192/14 (TGT Computer Science).

3. Number of candidates in UR and SC category having degree of BSC Physical Science who had been shortlisted against the postcode 192/14 (TGT Computer Science) PIO/APIO(HQ), Directorate of Education, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 15-11-2018, stating that no such information is available with the concerned branch.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, dated 01-12-2018.

The FAA, vide order dated 31-12-2018, observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.

Written submissions have been received from Section Officer (E-IV), Directorateof Education, GNCTD, vide letter dated 25.02.2021, Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has provided misleading information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: (1) Manoj Kumar, PIO, Section Officer- (RTI Cell)/HQ, Directorate of Education, GNCTD, Present in person. (2) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SO, O/o Assistant Director of Education-(E-IV), Directorate of Education, GNCTD, Present in person. Page 2 of 4

Appellant stated that initial reply of PIO was evasive and incorrect. He further stated that he has recently received another letter dated 25.02.2021 from the Respondent authority wherein point wise information was provided. He further stated that there has been a blatant delay on the part of PIO in providing the said information. He also stated the information regarding the selection of candidates, for the purpose of transparency and accountability, should be readily available in the public domain.

PIO submitted that inadvertently proper reply could not had been provided to the appellant by then PIO, however upon receipt of Commissions hearing notice available and relevant information was provided to the appellant.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission takes into account the submission of the appellant and expresses serious displeasure over the conduct of then PIO in having not provided correct information to the Appellant initially. In view of that, PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. PIO is further directed to send copy of supporting documents on which he relies upon in his submission as well as copy of reply sent on the RTI Application, if any. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the said conduct, the PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of the PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO.

Now, the Commission has gone through the case records and observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant by the PIO. No further action lies.

Page 3 of 4

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) ू ना आयुक्त) Information Commissioner (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (रतम प्रकतश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission