CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002276/5361
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002276
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Robin Sharma
78, R- Model Town,
Sonipat, Haryana- 131001.
Respondent : Ms. Neelam Verma
Public Information Officer & DDE(NW-A)
Directorate of Education,
Zone 10, North West A,
B A Block, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 20/04/2009
PIO replied : 10/06/2009
First appeal filed on : 27/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 10/06/2009
Second Appeal received on : 08/09/2009
S. No Information Sought
(On the basis of inspection carried out by Nr Reply of the PIO (After the order of
Suraj Bhan dated 07/09/2005.) FAA)
1. Whether the file has been closed. The file has not been closed.
b) The procedure and the reasons for closing
the file.
2. The course of action to be initiated since the Action will be taken when deciding
director of education was not satisfied with ACP cases or promotion.
the action taken against these 11 officials.
b) Reasons for not taking any action.
3. Whether the 11 teachers can be promoted on The matter will be discussed in the DPC
the basis of seniority. meeting.
b) The reasons for such promotion when a red Not applicable.
entry has been written in the service book of
these teachers and when a departmental
enquiry is still in progress.
c) The copy of the manual which prescribes
the promotion of employees who have a red Action will be taken against the guilty.
entry in their service book.
4. The name and designation of members of There are a total 5 members (Authorized
Departmental Promotion Committee which Officer, Subject Expert, Regional
appoints the Vice Principal. Education Officer, Regional Education
Officer of other zone, principal or vice
principal of the school).
b) The documents which are looked into when
selecting the candidates. ACR, Service Book, Result of last 5
years where the person has taught,
Academic certificate, Work and conduct
report, integrity certificate, seniority list,
no penalty certificate, vigilance
clearance certificate and any other
information sought by the DPC.
c) Whether the departmental promotion
committee will be/had been made aware of Yes, will be made aware.
the exam results.
d) If no, then reasons for the same.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA concurred with the information provided by the PIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Naveen Yadav representing Mr. Robin Sharma;
Respondent : Ms. Neelam Verma, Public Information Officer & DDE(NW-A);
The Appellant has been given the complete information after the order of the FAA. The
Appellant claims that this shows that some of the actions are not as per the directions of the
Director. The Appellant will have to agitate this at some other forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
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
04 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)