{"id":182882,"date":"2010-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-05T13:41:13","modified_gmt":"2017-02-05T08:11:13","slug":"bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010","title":{"rendered":".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
.Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010<\/div>\n
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan\n                        New Delhi 110066\n                Appeal No.CIC\/\/MA\/A\/2008\/01117\n                  Decision No.5607\/IC(A)\/2010\n\nName of the Appellants:                 Ms. Bindu Khanna\n                                        D-688, 2nd Floor, C.R. Park\n                                        New Delhi110 019.\n\nRespondent Public Authorities:          Directorate of Education\n                                        Government of NCT of Delhi\n                                        District South, Defence Colony\n                                        New Delhi-110 024.\n\nThird Party:                            Pinnacle School\n                                        D-Block, Panchsheel Enclave\n                                        New Delhi.\n\nDate of Hearing:                  30.06.2010\n\nDate of Decision:                       14.07.2010\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
 OF THE CASE:\n<\/p>\n
1.    On the grounds of non-compliance of the order dated 23.4.2008
\npassed by the first Appellate Authority (FAA) of the respondent, the
\nappellant submitted her 2nd appeal before the Commission through which
\nshe pleaded for compliance of the FAA order. The Commission upheld
\nthe decision of FAA and directed the respondent to provide the
\ninformation as per the direction of the FAA. Subsequently, the third
\nparty, the custodian of information, challenged the decision of the<\/p>\n
                                  1<\/span>
\n Commission before the High Court of Delhi, which has made the
\nfollowing observations vide its order dated 15.09.2009:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner M\/s
\n     Pinnacle School who is required to furnish information pursuant to
\n     application filed by Ms. Bindu Khanna, the respondent No.4 with
\n     the Public Information Officer of Director of Education, Govt. of
\n     NCT of Delhi, was not issued notice and heard before the
\n     impugned order dated 15th September, 2009 was passed. The
\n     impugned order passed by the Information Commissioner dated
\n     15th September, 2008 is required to be set aside for failure to
\n     comply with Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
\n     The said provision ensures compliance with principles of natural
\n     justice and requires that a third party shall be given a reasonable
\n     opportunity of being heard if an appeal is preferred before the
\n     Central Information Commission. It may be noted here that the
\n     petitioner before the Public Information Officer had relied upon
\n     Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and had submitted that information
\n     cannot be furnished.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 15th
\n     September, 2008 passed by the Information Commissioner is set
\n     aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication in
\n     accordance with law. The parties will appear before the Central
\n     Information Commission on 7th October, 2009 when a date for
\n     hearing will be given.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.    In pursuance of the above Court Order, the case was heard on
\n26.3.2010 and 30.6.2010.     During the hearing on 30.6.2010, the
\nfollowing were present:\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ms. Bindu Khanna along with Shri Manoj Khanna<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span>
\n       Respondents:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      1)  Ms. Indira Rani Singh, Link Officer, DDE, Dte. of Education\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2)  Ms. Satinder Kaur, RD, Dte. of Educaiton\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3)  Ms. Renu Sharma, EO, Dte. of Education\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4)  Shri H.K. Maan, ADE, Dte. of Education\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5)  Shri K.K. Batra, Manager of School (3rd party)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6)  Shri Ashok Chabra, Advocate for the School (3rd party)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
3.     The fact of the matter is that the Appellant Ms. Bindu Khanna, a
\nteacher in a private school, namely, Pinnacle School, wanted certain
\ninformation relating to her employment, mainly her service records,
\nleave and other statutory allowances, working hours, medical facilities,
\npension & gratuity benefits, etc. She made various oral as well as
\nwritten requests to the school. When she did not get the said
\ninformation, she approached Directorate of Education by filing an RTI
\napplication dated 11.2.2008.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The Public Information Officer (PIO), Directorate of Education
\ninformed the applicant that Pinnacle School had declined to provide
\ninformation under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
\n(hereinafter referred as the `RTI Act’). The Appellate Authority of the
\nDirectorate, by an order dated 23.4.2008 directed its PIO, in presence of
\nthe Manager of School Shri K.K. Batra, to procure information from the
\nschool and provide the same to the applicant. When the Appellate
\nAuthority’s order was not complied within the stipulated period due to
\nnon-cooperation of school authorities, the appellant had to file 2nd appeal
\nbefore this Commission on 30.6.2008.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The 2nd appeal of the applicant was disposed of by the
\nCommission on 15th September, 2008 whereby the Commission directed
\nthe Directorate to secure compliance of the order of its Appellate
\nAuthority dated 23.4.2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
 6.    Pinnacle School which is a third party in these proceedings
\napproached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition
\nNo.6956\/2008 and contended before the court that the RTI Act was not
\napplicable to the school, inter-alia, for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
      i)    Pinnacle school is a private school;\n<\/p>\n
      ii)   Delhi School Education Act and Rules framed thereunder do
\n            not provide for disclosure of information.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The School informed the High Court that the Commission passed
\nthe impugned order without hearing them and without complying with the
\nprinciples of natural justice. The Hon’ble High Court (Coram: Hon’ble
\nMr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna) by order dated 15.9.2009 held that the
\n“impugned order passed by the Information Commissioner dated 15 th
\nSeptember, 2008 is required to be set aside for failure to comply with
\nSection 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said provision
\nensures compliance with principles of natural justice and requires that a
\nthird party shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard if an
\nappeal is preferred before the Central Information Commission.” The
\nHon’ble High Court also noted that the petitioner school had relied upon
\nSection 8(1)(j) of the Act and submitted that information cannot be
\nfurnished.    The Hon’ble High Court accordingly by order dated 15 th
\nSeptember, 2009 set aside the impugned order dated 15th September,
\n2008 passed by the Commission and remanded the matter back to the
\nCommission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and directed
\nthe parties to present themselves before the Commission on 7th October,
\n2009.\n<\/p>\n
8.     In view of the remand order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
\ndirecting fresh adjudication by the Commission, it was felt necessary that
\nthe matter be decided by a larger Bench. Initially, the matter was fixed
\nto be heard by a Bench comprising three Hon’ble Information
\nCommissioners on 3rd February, 2010 which was adjourned to 26 th
\nMarch, 2010. On 26.3.2010, the parties were directed to identify
\nwhatever information could be provided to the appellant out of 23 items<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span>
\n of information as sought by the appellant in her RTI application and then
\nto appear before the Commission on 25th May, 2010 to resolve the
\nissues of denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, by the
\nPinnacle School. The hearing was, however, postponed on the request
\nof the School. It was finally fixed for hearing on 30.6.2010, as stated
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
9.     In the meantime, the respondent by their letter dated 19.4.2010
\nconceded that unaided recognized schools under Rule 180 of the Delhi
\nSchool Education Rule have to provide certain category of information to
\nthe Directorate, which only can be provided to the applicants seeking
\ninformation. Such category of information are budget estimates, final
\naccounts, students’ enrolment, concessions\/ scholarship\/staff statement,
\nschedule of fees\/fines\/funds, statement showing dates of disbursement
\nof salaries. The PIO prayed that CIC may in the interest of natural
\njustice direct private schools to display on their websites all the
\ninformation pertaining to their employees, EWS details, admission
\ndetails of the students in various classes.\n<\/p>\n
10. The petitioner submitted that the Delhi School Education Act and
\nrules framed thereunder are a complete code governing all aspects of
\nfunctioning of aided and unaided recognized schools. A combined
\nreading of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the Delhi School Education
\nRules [in particular Rules 50(xviii) and (xix)] shall conclusively establish
\nthat the respondent Directorate as the governing authority of the school,
\nhas the requisite powers vested in it to access to the information sought
\nby the appellant. The petitioner further submitted that the third party by
\ndenying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has already
\nconceded the applicability of the RTI Act and had not made any
\nrepresentation to the effect that the information sought could not be
\ngiven as the provisions of the RTI Act were not applicable to them. The
\npetitioner also stated that in the hearing conducted by the First Appellate
\nAuthority on 9.4.2008, the Manager of the School, Shri K.K. Batra was
\npresent. And, in the said hearing, the School did not agitate against the
\napplicability of the RTI Act. The petitioner alleged that the School was<\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span>
\n changing its stance at different levels for denial of information for
\nmalafied reasons.\n<\/p>\n
11. The respondents submitted that certain information relating to
\ninspection reports of staff room, activity room, computer room, library,
\netc., copies of all proceedings held for election of members of Managing
\nCommittee and copies of all inspection reports conducted and submitted
\nby Zonal Education Officer till date respectively have been provided to
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12. The third party submitted that the RTI Act is not applicable to the
\nprivate schools and it is the Directorate of Education which had to be
\napproached in this connection. They further contended that Delhi
\nSchool Education Act and Rules framed thereunder do not provide for
\ndisclosure of information. This stand of the 3 rd party was in contradiction
\nof the stand already taken before the PIO and the First Appellate
\nAuthority that the information sought by the appellant was exempted
\nunder Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed. The third
\nparty has filed written statements in support of their claim and this has
\nbeen taken on record and considered.\n<\/p>\n
Issue for determination:\n<\/p>\n
      Whether the third party, a private school performing public
\n      function, can refuse to furnish the information under Section 8(1)(j)
\n      of the Act, particularly when the FAA of the respondent has
\n      ordered for disclosure of information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Decisions:\n<\/p>\n
13. The FAA of the respondent had duly heard the third party, the
\nSchool Manager, Shri. K.K. Batra, and accordingly passed orders for
\nproviding the information. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the third
\nparty was not heard before the passage of the FAA order, which was
\nlater upheld by the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
 14. The third party has made contradictory statements. It has been
\nargued before the Commission that RTI Act is not applicable to a private
\nschool and that the Delhi School Education Act and Rules framed
\nthereunder do not provide for disclosure of information. Against this, the
\nstand already taken by the third party before the PIO and the First
\nAppellate Authority was that the information sought by the appellant was
\nexempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and thereby conceding
\napplicability of the RTI Act to them.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines `Information’ thus:\n<\/p>\n
      “Section 2(f):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “Information” means any material in any form, including records,
\n      documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,
\n      circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples,
\n      models, data material held in any electronic form and information
\n      relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
\n      authority under any other law for the time being in force.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Further while defining `right to information’, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act
\nlays down as under:\n<\/p>\n
      Section 2(j):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “Right to information” means the right to information accessible
\n      under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public
\n      authority and includes the right to–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)     inspection of work, documents, records;\n      (ii)    taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or\n              records;\n      (iii)   taking certified samples of material;\n      (iv)    obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies,\n<\/pre>\n
              tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or
\n              through printouts where such information is stored in a
\n              computer or in any other device;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
       Section 2(n) of the RTI Act defines `third party’ as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Section 2(n):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ‘Third party’ means a person other than the citizen making a
\n      request for information and includes a public authority’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
`Information’ thus means any material in any form including records etc
\nand information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a
\npublic authority under any other law for the time being in force. In the
\ncase of third party Pinnacle School, the public authority is the
\nrespondent-Directorate of Education and the appellant has rightly
\nsubmitted her RTI application to the said public authority which has to
\naccess information under the Act. However, in view of section 2(j) of the
\nAct, the `right to information’ extends to only those information which is
\nheld by or under the control of a public authority.\n<\/p>\n
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs.
\nAdministrative Officer & ors” ( AIR2010SC615) has held that under Section
\n6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information
\nwhich can be accessed by the Public Authority under any other law for
\nthe time being in force. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Poorna Prajna
\nPublic School Vs. Central Information Commission” (Manu\/DE\/2577\/2009)
\nhas held that the term ‘held by or under the control of any public
\nauthority’ in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it
\neffectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term ‘information’
\nas defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of
\nthe RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies
\ndefinition of the term ‘information’ in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The
\nHon’ble High Court held that a private body need not be a public
\nauthority and the said term ‘private body’ has been used to distinguish
\nand in contradistinction to the term ‘public authority’ as defined in
\nSection 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is
\nentitled to access, under any law, from private body, is `information’ as
\ndefined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished. It was<\/p>\n
                                     8<\/span>
\n further held by the Hon’ble High Court that the term ‘third party’ includes
\nnot only the public authority but also any private body or person other
\nthan the citizen making request for the information. The School is a
\nprivate body and a third party under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
17. It thus can be concluded that the Pinnacle School is a third party
\nand is under the control of the respondent herein. As to the third party’s
\ncontention that the Delhi Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder
\ndo not provide for disclosure of information, on perusal of the said
\nprovision, it is found that various clauses of Rule 50 of the Delhi School
\nEducation Rules, 1973, in particular clauses (xviii) and (xix), are relevant
\nfor the present controversy. The same are being reproduced hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
      “Rule 50: Conditions for recognition — No private school shall
\n      be recognized, or continue to be recognized, by the appropriate
\n      authority unless the school fulfills the following conditions, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (xviii) the school furnishes such reports and information as may be
\n              required by the Director from time to time and complies with
\n              such instructions of the appropriate authority or the Director
\n              as may be issued to secure the continued fulfillment of the
\n              condition of recognition or the removal of deficiencies in the
\n              working of the school;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (xix)   all records of the school are open to inspection by any
\n              officer authorized by the Director or the appropriate authority
\n              at any time, and the school furnishes such information as
\n              may be necessary to enable the Central Government or the
\n              Administrator to discharge its or his obligations to
\n              Parliament or to the Metropolitan Council of Delhi, as the
\n              case may be.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18. The Pinnacle School has submitted that “All personal information
\nhas already been provided to the Applicant and in case she still wants
\nshe can again be provided”.\n<\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
 19. Therefore, we hold that the orders passed by the First Appellate
\nAuthority directing the third party to provide complete information to the
\nappellant and the decision of the Commission affirming the orders of the
\nFirst Appellate Authority are perfectly in compliance with the provisions
\nof the Act. The third party is hence obliged to comply with the said
\norders. The Commission, therefore, directs the Respondent to seek
\ncompliance of the aforementioned order from the third party-Pinnacle
\nSchool to provide information as sought at Serial Numbers (i) to (x), (xiv)
\nand (xv) of the RTI application of the appellant dated 11.2.2008 within 15
\ndays from the date of receipt of this decision and submit compliance
\nimmediately thereafter. The information should be furnished free of cost
\nas per Section 7(6) of the Act, failing which appropriate action would be
\ninitiated against the concerned officials.\n<\/p>\n
20. The issues relating to management and regulation of schools
\nresponsible for promotion of education are so important for development
\nthat it cannot be left at whims and caprices of private bodies, whether
\nfunded or not by the Government.           The Director, Directorate of
\nEducation should, therefore, ensure compliance of these directions
\nincluding the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 23.4.2008. In
\ncase the School in question fails to cooperate in the matter, appropriate
\naction under relevant rules should be initiated for de-recognition of the
\nschool activities. A compliance report should be submitted at the
\nearliest.\n<\/p>\n
21. Announced on the Fourteenth day of July, 2010. Notice of this
\ndecision be given free of cost to the parties including Secretary, Ministry
\nof Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions.\n<\/p>\n
                   Sd\/-                                 Sd\/-\n            (Prof. M.M. Ansari)                   (Satyananda Mishra)\n        Information Commissioner               Information Commissioner\n\n\n                                    10<\/span>\n                                     Sd\/-\n                              (Shailesh Gandhi)\n                          Information Commissioner\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
\nagainst application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the
\nAct, to the CPIO of this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Aakash Deep)
\nAdditional Registrar<\/p>\n
Name & Address of Parties:\n<\/p>\n
1.    Ms. Bindu Khanna, D-688, 2nd floor, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi –\n<\/p>\n
      110 019.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The PIO\/DDE (South), Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi,
\n      O\/o the Dy. Director of Education, Distt. South, C-Block, Defence
\n      Colony, New Delhi – 110 024.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Regional Director & Appellate Authority, Directorate of Education,
\n      GNCT of Delhi, Office of the Regional Director of Education
\n      (South), C-4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Shri. K.K. Batra, Manager, Pinnacle School, D-Block, Panchsheel
\n      Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017.\n<\/p>\n
                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission .Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhawan New Delhi 110066 Appeal No.CIC\/\/MA\/A\/2008\/01117 Decision No.5607\/IC(A)\/2010 Name of the Appellants: Ms. Bindu Khanna D-688, 2nd Floor, C.R. Park New Delhi110 019. Respondent Public Authorities: Directorate of Education Government of NCT of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\n.Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-05T08:11:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-05T08:11:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2834,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\",\"name\":\".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-05T08:11:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-05T08:11:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-05T08:11:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010"},"wordCount":2834,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010","name":".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-05T08:11:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-khanna-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":".Bindu Khanna vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 14 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=182882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182882\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}