Central Information Commission
Rajni Maindiratta vs Directorate Of Education on 14 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2015/001181
Date of Hearing : 07.06.2017
Date of Decision : 07.06.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Ms. Rajni Maindirata
Respondent : GNCTD
Through:
Ms. ARchana Vishwadeep, Dy.
Director
Ms. Ira Vishwakarma,
Vice Principal
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.02.2015
PIO replied on : 17.03.2015
First Appeal filed on : 01.04.2015
First Appellate Order on : 01.05.2015
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 12.06.2015
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 13.02.2015, the appellant sought following information:-
1. Copies of receipt and payment account for the year 2009 to 2014 as filed by Vidya Bharati School, Sector-15, Rohini under Rule 180 of DSEAR, 1973.
2. Copies of Pattern of concessions/scholarship, etc. for the years 2010 to 2014 as filed by Vidya Bharati School, Sector-15, Rohini under Rule 180 of DSEAR, 1973.
3. Copy of the Minutes of the VBS, DAC meeting dated 24.09.2014.
4. Copies of Minutes of the VBS, SMC meeting dated 22.01.2015 ad DAC meeting in which the decision to remove undersigned from the services was taken.
The CPIO furnished the information to the appellant vide letter dated 17.03.2015. Having received incomplete information from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated directed the PIO to provide certified point wise complete revised reply to appellant within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant chose to remain absent despite notice. The respondent is present and heard. The respondent states that information with regard to receipt and payment account for the years 2009-2014 as well as pattern of concessions/scholarships etc. for the year 2010-2014 as filed by the Vidya Bharti School under Rule 180 of DSEA&R 1973. A copy of minutes of the meeting has also been furnished. The respondent further states that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal against her termination order and the matter is not yet finalised.
In the backdrop of the case, the respondent has submitted as under:
It is submitted that the appellant was removed from service under Rule 117 of DSEA&R 1973 after an inquiry as per the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and whereas during the period from November till now she has continued to file RTO's asking for information which have no public interest. The CIC heard numerous appeals seeking information mostly personal in respect of the teacher i.e. her pay details, her service record, minutes pertaining to decision of her suspension/removal from the School of both the Managing Committee as well as the Disciplinary Authority, details of the DE nominee in the Disciplinary Authority, inspection of all files related to her employer, PTA elections of her employer among others.
The respondent further states that most of the RTI applications filed by the appellant related to herself and her employer school. She also states that the School has been a target of the appellant since the very inception of her disciplinary proceedings. She states that Hon'ble CIC while disposing of second appeal No. CIC/CA/A/2014/001772 dated 14.11.2014 observed as under:
"The Commission noticed vengeance and total lack of public interest behind her requests for information. It is highly unethical an immoral for such guilty teacher to abuse RTI. She had almost arrested functioning ....."
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that information as available on record has been furnished to the appellant. The facts narrated by the Respondent above also indicate that the applicant has been a habitual information seeker to satiate her personal agenda. She has chosen not to appear before the Commission during the hearing thereby indicating her disinterest towards the information per se. However, the Commission feels that enrolment of EWS category students is of public interest and must be mandatorily submitted by the School to the Directorate of Education to be published on website for wider dissemination. No other direction is necessitated in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-