CIC/SA/C/2014/000377. Case: Anurag Garg Vs Deputy Director of Education. Central Information Commission

Case Number:CIC/SA/C/2014/000377
Party Name:Anurag Garg Vs Deputy Director of Education
Counsel:For Respondents: R.C. Yadav
Judges:M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner
Issue:Right to Information Act
Judgement Date:April 22, 2015
Court:Central Information Commission

Decision:

M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner

1. Information sought:

2. Complainant through his RTI application had sought for information concerning the PGT teachers appointed since 2008 in following points:

"1. Name of the teachers, date of their appointment and their qualification (academic and professional if any), Nature of their appointment along with the copy of the appointment letter, Copy of the office Order/contract of applying each one on probation or confirmation, Amount of payment made to each PGT in the month of April, May and June and the date of payment, Additional benefits made to each teacher.

2. Copy of Anurag Garg(Self) Service book

3. File Noting and the minutes of meeting of Disciplinary Committee relating to Disciplinary action taken against Anurag Garg.

4. Does your employee have to submit any amount of sum in the name of security. If yes please provide the copy of records of submission and maintenance of this sum.

5. Office order of any extra duties assigned to any PGT."

CPIO reply:

3. PIO for Point No. 1(i) & (ii) requested the appellant to submit a sum of Rs. 18, For Point No. 1 (iii) to (v) & (2) stated that the information is neither available nor maintained in the office, For Point No. 3 it was stated that the information sought was not available, For Point No. 4 it was stated that as per the available record the information is NIL and Point No. 5 it was stated that the information sought was covered under Point No. 1.

Ground for First Appeal:

4. Incomplete information had been furnished except the appointment details rest of the information sought by the appellant was not provided by the PIO. The appellant relied on Rule 50 (xviii) of the DSE Act and stated that the Public authority had power to seek information in relation to the RTI application from the concerned school and provide the same to the appellant. The appellant also relied on Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act and drew the attention of FAA that the information sought can be accessed by the Public authority from the Private body which is the school in the present case.

Ground For Complaint:

5. Delayed and incomplete information furnished by PIO.

Proceedings Before the Commission:

6. Appellant submitted that he had joined Amrita Vidyalayam, New Delhi as PGT Physics. On his demanding of Valid appointments letter, resetting of working conditions, service rules and salary in accordance to Govt. Rules (DSE &amp...

To continue reading

Request your trial