CIC/WB/A/2006/62, 65, 68-74, 76-80, 82, 83, 87, 89-101, 103-106 and 108-111. Case: Boby Verma and Ors. Vs Directorate of Education. Central Information Commission

Case NumberCIC/WB/A/2006/62, 65, 68-74, 76-80, 82, 83, 87, 89-101, 103-106 and 108-111
JudgesWajahat Habibullah, C.I.C. and O.P. Kejariwal, I.C.
IssueRight to Information Act
Judgement DateMarch 27, 2006
CourtCentral Information Commission


Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C. and O.P. Kejariwal, I.C.


1. This is an appeal by 40 applicants on registration and admission of children from the weaker sections in public schools in Delhi On 1.12.05. an application was made to PIO Dr. RA Yadav Deputy Director Education (East) requesting information on ten issues from the Mayo International Public School IP Extn Delhi 92 On 14.12.05. another application was made for information on five issues regarding the National Victor Public School IP Extn, Delhi Identical applications of ten and five sets of issues relating to eight public schools were submitted by different applicants on different dates to the PIO Dr. RA Yadav and on no response being received from the PIO within the stipulated time appeals filed together on 18.1.06. before the appellate authority. Dr. MC. Mathur, Regional Director of Education (East). These were all heard on 10.2.06. The appeal to this Commission has been made against no reply having been received at all in 14 cases and allegedly wrong and irrelevant information being provided after the first appeal to the others. A statement of this process appellant wise is on file.

2. Hence this appeal filed together before the Commission on 6.3.06, which it was therefore decided to hear together.

3. Dr Mathur and Dr Yadav from the Directorate of Education present together with applicants assisted by RTI activist Sh Shekhar Singh Officers of the Directorate explained that there is a 20% reservation in admission to schools under the free quota schemes for weaker sections. However the public schools do not come under government and are therefore not public authorities. The Department can only direct adherence to the Scheme but not actually implement it. To provide the information asked for the Department would have to await reports from the concerned schools. Hence the delay in providing the information despite every intention so to do Representatives of the Department also explained that it was their effort to ensure implementation of the scheme and sought the collaboration of appellants in this regard. Hence meetings had been called in which all difficulties had been addressed to the satisfaction of the appellants. Hence there was deemed no further need to provide information and the order of the Appellate authority Dr Mathur says as much on 14/2/06.

4. The appellants however state that although they were indeed present in the meetings mentioned they...

To continue reading

Request your trial