CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000089/11514
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000089
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
Flat No. 252, N.D.M.C. Housing Complex
Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi 110085
Respondent : Mr. Anjum Masood
Public Information Officer & ADE (H.Q.)
Directorate of Education, GNCTD
RTI Cell, (Room No. 220)
Old Secretariat, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 24/07/2010
PIO replied : 26/08/2010 & 08/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 27/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 02/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 10/01/2011
Information Sought:-
1. What is the procedure of promoting a T.G.T.(English) to the post of P.G.T.(English)? Can teachers
from other subjects come above the English teachers in seniority while considering promotion of
T.G.T.(English) to P.G.T.(English)?
2. According to the amendment dated 23 April, 1996, the G.N.C.T. of Delhi had proposed the
categorization of T.G.T. (Gen.) as T.G.T. (S.S./English). Even after this categorization and re-
designation, In the year 1999 amendment for the promotion of lecturer came, which was contradicting
the amendment of April, 1996, where the re-designated subjects were again referred as T.G.T.
(Gen/Science A). I kindly request you to specify these contradictory statements.
3. What does “etc.” refer to in the amendment dated 04-11-1999 under column no. 12 Para 2? Kindly
specify the languages covered under “etc.”
4. Has the RR been sent for amendment to any senior officer or some concerned place for amendment of
P.G.T. promotion or not? If yes, then where and what the amendment Is?
5. RR passed from your department is executed in other departments also. In recent years, in the schools
of the Government of NCT of Delhi, how many T.G.T.(English) have been promoted to the post of
P.G.T.(English)? If none has been promoted, then what is the reason?
6. Can teachers of Political Science, Social Science, and Economics etc. teach Science and Technology?
If this is being done, then is it justified and is it in the interest of the students?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
1. Recruitment Rules for promotion is available on the website of Directorate Education (i.e.
www.edudel.nic.in).
2&3. As per section 2(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought is not covered under RTI Act, 2005.
4. The matter regarding amendments of RRs is under process.
5. As per order dated 03/03/2010, 46 candidates promoted to the post of PGT/Lecturer (English).
6. As per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought is not covered under RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory & incomplete information provided by PIO
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“I have perused the original RTI application, reply furnished by the PIO(H.Q.) and appeal filed by him. I
am of the view that the reply has already been given by the PIO (Hq). However, revised reply of Question No.4 to
be given by ADE (E-II) within 21 days.”
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) after the FAA Order on 08/11/2010:-
Point No. 4- The proposal for amendment in RRs for the post of PGTs was sent to the office of Hon’ble
L.G. of Govt. of NCT of Delhi for approval hut the same has been returned with few observations. The
observations are under consideration in the Deptt and the same will he resubmitted to Hon’ble L.G for approval in
due course.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory & incomplete information received from PIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh;
Respondent: Mr. S. S. Malik, Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Anjum Masood, Public Information Officer &
ADE (H.Q.);
The Appellant states that he has received part of the information on query-4 but has not been given
the copy of the amendment proposed to the RR. The Respondent states he does not know why this
information was not provided. The PIO is directed to provide an attested photocopy of the amendment that
has been proposed to the RR.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide attested photocopy of the amendment to the RR to the
Appellant before 30 March 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
16 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)
Page 2 of 2