Central Information Commission Judgements

Smt. Varsha Luthra vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 23 July, 2009

Central Information Commission
Smt. Varsha Luthra vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 23 July, 2009
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION22
                       Club Building (Near Post Office),
                     Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                            Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                   Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001459/4239
                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001459

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Smt. Varsha Luthra,
116/22, Street no. 1,
Tanaji Nagar, Dhan Nardi Road,
Bhajan Ganj,
Ajmer-305001 (Rajasthan)

Respondent : Mrs. Neelam Shekhawat,
Admin. Officer/PIO,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office, 92 Gandhi Nagar Marg,
Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur – 302015

RTI application filed on : 14/01/2009
PIO replied : 30/01/2009
First appeal filed on : 22/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 04/05/2009
Second Appeal received on : 08/06/2009

Information Sought:

1. Was Mr. Ajay Kaushal, current Lower Dividion Cleark at K.V. No. 2 (Airforce)
Jodhpur, promoted to Upper division clerk at K.V. Banad through letter no. F.No.
11042/01/2008-KVS(HQ)(Estt.III) dated 07/03/2008?

2. Was Mr. Ajay released from service from K.V. No. 2 (Airforce), Jodhpur on
10/03/2008 in pursuance of the above mentioned letter?

3. Did Mr. Ajay Kaushal submit his Joining Report to K.V Banad on 11/03/08?

4. Was Mr. Ajay not allowed to join at K.V. Banad because of a pending judicial
order regarding the post of Senior Clerk?

5. What was the reason for transferring Mr. Ajay to the school where a judicial order
was pending? Was the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Headquarters) not
intimated of the pending judicial order?

6. Which Office (a K.V. School or Regional Office) is responsible for not forwarding
the information?

7. The order not to appoint anyone other than Smt. Chanda Rathore to the post of
Senior Clerk at K.V. Banad, was passed by the court on which date?

8. Kendra Vidyalaya Sagathan (Regional Office) intimated its head office of this
court order on what date and through which letter no.?
What amount would the Appellant have to submit for copies of the representation
submitted by Smt. Chanda Rathore before CAT and all the judgments (stay and
basic order) of CAT regarding her representation?

9. Is Mr. Ajay at fault for not being able to join office at K.V Banad, on 11/03/08?

10. Will the “Annual Transfer Order” for session 2009-10 sent by Mr. Ajay be
accepted or not? If not, for what reasons?

11. Will the transfer letter sent by those lower level officers mentioned in order dated
07/03/2008 who joined as senior clerk before 31/03/08, be accepted?

12. Will the department make any amends towards the harm, if any suffered, by Mr.
Ajay?

13. What was Mr. Ajay’s status from 11/03/08 to 13/05/08, (i.e whether he was a
Junior Clerk or a Senior clerk)?

14. Can a employee be demoted by the dept. after he has been promoted once? Please
provide a copy of the document stating this.

15. Is there any provision for a term such as “Awaiting Posting Order” in the Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan? If yes, under what circumstances an employee is designated
as such?

16. How many Junior and senior clerks were attached to the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (RegionalOffice) Jaipur between 11/03/2008 and 13/05/2008?

17. If there are more than required clerks at any school or station then who is
transferred first – the junior most clerk or the senior most clerk?

PIO’s Reply:

Information refused under section 8(j) of RTI Act.

Grounds for First Appeal:

Refusal to provide information.

The First Appellate Authority ordered:
FAA provided information w.r.t questions 1 to 9 and 15, 16 and 17. The rest of the questions
were concerning the police dept. and hence not answered.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

1. Information provided after the expiry of the prescribed period of time.

2. Irrelevant information given.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The Following were present
Appellant:Absent
Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shekhawat, PIO
The Appellant has sent a fax stating that she wishes to withdraw the appeal since he has got the
information satisfactorily.

Decision
The Appeal is withdrawn.

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 Ac.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(BK)