In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001673
Date of Hearing : September 16, 2011
Date of Decision : September 16, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Ramesh Chander Bamotra
S/o Shri K.C. Bamotra
R/o B105, Ganesh Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi 110 018
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Directorate of Education
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri K.S. Yadav, DDE, WestA
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001673
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 27.04.2011 with the PIO, Directorate of Education,
WestA District, New Delhi seeking certain information (such as, degree/provisional certificate final
mark sheet of M.P. Ed. Course; appointment letter; leaves details; details of pay etc.) in respect of
one Shri Raj Pal Singh Chauhan, working in Mahashay Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir, Sr. Sec.
(Recog.) School, New Delhi. The PIO, on 07.05.2011, informed the Applicant that the information
sought by him is not being maintained by them since it is not returnable by the school under Rule180
of DSEAR 1973 and that the said school is not a public authority. The Applicant, being aggrieved with
the PIO’s reply, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 19.05.2011 which the AA
decided on 14.06.2011upholding the PIO’s reply. The Appellant then filed the present appeal before
the Commission on 04.07.2011 requesting for the disclosure of information. He also cited the
Commission’s decision in F.No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001710, by which, according to him, the Commission
had allowed the disclosure of an identical request for information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the PIO stated that under the law they are not expected to call for this variety of
information from schools unless they receive a specific complaint against their (schools’)
employee(s). He, however, mentioned that they do receive a ‘staff statement’ from schools at the
end of every month which is exclusively meant for them. On his part, the Appellant alleged that the
said individual about whom the information has been sought is not properly discharging his duty. He
cited an incident when the said individual, according to him, was found to be present at two places at
the same time. According the Appellant, the individual was shown as being present in the school
while at the same time he was in another place, attending a University.
3. Since the Directorate of Education is mandated to enquire into such complaints/allegations as leveled
against the school employee by the Appellant, it was agreed consequent to the discussions that
took place, that the Appellant will file a formal complaint, along with evidence (if any), against the
said individual with the public authority (PIO) so that they could enquire into the matter as per the
provisions of the DSE Act & Rules 1973 . The Appellant agreed to file the complaint the day after
the date of hearing. (i.e. 17.09.2011). The PIO, at his level, also assured the Appellant that swift
action will be taken on the Appellant’s complaint, once it is filed, preferably within one month of the
date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. Appeal is disposed of with the above recommendation.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ramesh Chander Bamotra
S/o Shri K.C. Bamotra
R/o B105, Ganesh Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi 110 018
2. The Appellate Authority
Directorate of Education
Office of RD (C/W), 2nd Floor,
Sarvodaya Vidyalaya Building,
Lucknow Road,
New Delhi 110 054
3. Public Information Officer
Directorate of Education
Office of Dy. Director Education,
Distt. WestA, Karam Pura, New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC