CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003619/11284
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003619
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma
H. No. B-416, Village Devli
New Delhi – 110062
Respondent : Mr. Lakhan Lal
APIO & Vice principal
Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School
Directorate of Education
Chirag Delhi (Soami Nagar)
New Delhi – 110017
RTI application filed on : 04/08/2010
PIO replied : 01/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 07/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 09/11/2010
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Name of teachers ordered to take charge Mr. O S Tyagi PGT(eco) was assigned the duty to
of the guest teachers during April to June give verbal instructions to all teachers as individual
2010 teachers were not possible due to CBSE evaluation
2. Copy of the arrangement orders if issued Copy enclosed
in this regard with clarification whether
this arrangement was on daily basis or
monthly basis
3. Name of teacher who took charge of Sh. S Arrangement was made according to the
L Sharma due too his absents arrangement register. As it is not traceable, the
names of teachers cannot be given
4. Clarification whether the arrangement of Arrangement period is a regular process by the DDE
the said teachers in regard with the query
no. 1 and 3 effect the period marked to the
said teachers
5. Copy of the master time table issued in Not traceable
July 2010.
First Appeal:
The appellant alleges that no information provided by the PIO within the stipulated time period of 30
days.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO was directed to look into the grievances of the appellant in the representations and solve them within 10
days. The information given by the PIO is satisfactory.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved with the information supplied by the PIO. He believes the same to be
misleading and incorrect
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. Lakhan Lal, APIO & Vice principal;
The Respondent has provided the information but is now directed to provide the following information;
1- Query-1: There is no specific written order by which teachers are asked to take the lectures assigned to
the guest teachers during the period April to June 2010.
2- Query-2: The Respondent states that there is no specific arrangement order on the records. He is
directed to give this in writing to the Appellant.
The Respondent states that with respect to master time table he has filed a complaint to the police that it has
been lost. The Appellant alleges that no master time table has been prepared. It is not possible for the Commission
to come to any conclusion in this matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Lakhan Lal, Vice Principal to provide the information
on the two points as directed above to the Appellant before 25 February 2011.
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 February 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)