CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001471/8543Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001471
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Hakam Singh
J-510/8, Sector 16
Rohini
New Delhi- 110089
Respondent : Ms. S. R. Sapolia
Public Information Officer & Deputy Director
Navyug School Educational Society
Head Office N.P. Primary School
Hanuman Road,
New Delhi- 110001
RTI application filed on : 05/01/2010
PIO replied : 11/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 24/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal received on : 31/05/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information
Officer (PIO)
1. Had NDMC re-employed any retired Principal, Vice The NSES had employed only 1
principal, PGT/TGT/PRT or Head Master in NSES teacher in TGT.
immediately after the Appellants retirement at the age of 60
years?
2. Name and position of such re-employed retired Principal, Mrs. Manju Aggarwal had been
Vice principal, PGT/TGT/PRT or Head Master working at re-employed as TGT.
NSES.
3. Date on which such re-employed person got retired and the She retired on 30.04.2009 & re-
date on which he was re-employed. employed w.e.f. 17.12.2009.
4. The monthly salary amount drawn along with the name and No.
designation, if appointed on contractual basis.
5. No. of teachers working on contractual basis in each Navyug Only 4 teachers were working on
School on the date on which these retired Principal, Vice contract basis when Mrs. Manju
principal, PGT/TGT/PRT or Head Master were re-employed Gupta was re-employed.
on contract basis in NSES.
6. No. of teachers (working on contractual basis) removed and No contract teacher had been
on what basis after the re-employment of retired person. removed after the date of re-
employment of Mrs. Manju
Aggarwal.
Page 1 of 4
7. Names and cast of such retrenched contract teachers and the Not applicable in view of above
date on which their service had been withdrawn and date information in query 6.
since they were working in NSES.
8. No. of contract employees of NSES who had been 03 employees working as
regularized since the present incumbent had taken over the accounts clerk had been
office of chairman of NDMC. regularized- Dimple Talwar, CB
Rai, Inder Bhushan.
9. Date of regularization and joining of such contractual Regularized on 24.03.2008
employees in NSES.
10. Names with permanent and present address of such Names already mentioned and
regularized employees address is personal information
which cannot be furnished.
11. The office procedure /guidelines adopted by NDMC in Regularized as per RRs with the
regularization of these contractual employees. approval of the competent
authority.
12. A copy of prescribed rule, if any, regarding the procedure of Presently no rule or regulation.
regularization of these contractual employees.
13. Status of employees of NSES. They are not NDMC employees
and NSES is a separate society.
14. Role of NDMC in NSES regarding the employment in No role.
Navyug schools.
15. Basis of recent employment notice issued by NSES for Employment notice was
appointment of teachers on regular basis. published to fill up the posts as
required.
16. Prior to notice in query 15, had there been a similar No. Employment was made by
procedure adopted by NSES for appointment of teachers. conducting interviews after
Notice.
17. No. of times NSES conducted the written tests for First time the test had been
appointment of teachers. conducted by NSES.
18. Would these appointments substitute the teachers presently Yes
working from time to time?
19. Is there any policy to regularize the service of teachers No
presently working?
20. Under which policy had the teachers been appointed in To meet the urgent requirements.
various Navyug schools?
21. What would be the fate of teachers rendering satisfactory The contractual appointees have
service to the Navyug Schools from long back and now not no right for claiming the
fulfilling the eligibility criteria only on basis of less regulariazation.
percentage of marks in graduation?
22. Is there any policy for the welfare of such contractual Candidates considered for
teachers to safeguard their livelihood? selection only on fulfillment of
RRs
23. List of names and designations of M/s NIIT teachers Ms. Priyanka Bhatnagar, Ms.
appointed for teaching class XI and XII along with their Shagifta Parveen, Ms. Richa
qualification and percentage of marks in graduation and post Sharma and Mr. Deepak.
graduation & category UR/SC/ST/OBC.
Page 2 of 4
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and misleading information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA had not ordered.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information by the PIO and denial and no personal hearing by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 15 July 2010:
“The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Hakam Singh
Respondent: Ms. S. R. Sapolia, Public Information Officer & Deputy Director;
The appellant has shown that he has delivered the First Appeal at the centralized registry on
24/02/2010. The appellant and the PIO both confirmed that no order has been received from the FAA. The
First Appellate Authority Ms. Mamta Rani Aggarwal, Director has not issued the required order as FAA.
The First Appellate Authority appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since she does not appear to have
passed any order in the matter.
The PIO has given certain information but is now directed to again give the correct information on
the following queries:
1- Query-4;
2- Query-9: Date of Joining NSES;
3- Query-11: Copy of policy for regularization of Group -C and D non-teaching staff.
4- Query-15: Copy of file notings based on which the advertisement was issued in June 2008.
5- Query-23: The list of names and designations of NIIT Teachers alongwith their qualifications,
percentage of marks and category."
Commission's Decision dated 15 July 2010:
"The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information on the 05 points mentioned
above to the appellant before 05 August 2010.
The First Appellate Authority Ms. Mamta Rani Aggarwal, Director is directed to
present herself before the Commission with her explanation on 19 August 2010 at 4.30pm
to showcause why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against her
for dereliction of duty.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 19 August 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Hakam Singh
Respondent: Ms. Mamta Agarwal, FAA & Director; Ms. S. R. Sapolia, PIO & Deputy Director;
The FAA has stated that she was on leave at the time when first appeal was received hence Mr.
Ravi Dadhich was looking after this charge. Ms. Indu Shukla who was temporary engaged was supposed
to put-up the papers to the dealing assistant Mr. R. K. Verma. According to the PIO Mrs. Indu Shukla did
not give pages to Mr. Verma and Mr. Vikas Mathur and hence the FAA did not issue the requisite order.
The Commission expects that public authority will organize its system better so that the FAA functions
properly. The appellant states that he has received the information ordered by the Commission but states
that as far as query-23 is concerned the designations of the NIIT Teacher have not been provided. The
Page 3 of 4
PIO states that NIIT does not give designations as per the norms of the department. However, the PIO will
get a statement from NIIT on the designation of the teachers and provide it to the appellant. The appellant
has been provided information number of times and states that he would like to inspect the records.
The appellant will provide the list of files which he wants to inspect to the PIO before 24 August
2010 and the appellant will inspect the relevant records on 13 and 14 September 2010 from 10.30Am
onwards. The appellant will have one more person assisting him during the inspection.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before
10 September 2010.
The PIO is directed to facilitate of the records by the appellant on 13 and 14
September 2010 from 10.30am onwards. The PIO will give photocopies of the records
which the appellant free of cost upto 500 pages.
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
19 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)
Page 4 of 4