Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
sidmis

Govt fined for not giving admission info

Recommended Posts

sidmis

Govt fined for not giving admission info

as reported in Times of India by Himanshi Dhawan 17 Nov 2008, TNN

 

NEW DELHI: Even as parents struggle in the quagmire of nursery admissions, the Central Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the Delhi government's education department for its inability to give details of admissions given to under-privileged children by two well-known schools.

 

Information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi has slapped a penalty of Rs 25,000 -- the maximum that can be levied -- on the education department's public information officer. In his order, Gandhi said the PIO was unable to give any "reasonable cause" for her complete failure to provide information.

 

Prakash Kumar had filed an RTI plea demanding information of pre-primary and pre-school admissions in Vasant Valley and Ryan International schools in Vasant Kunj from the state education department. Amongst the details that Kumar had asked for were the number of applications received under the EWS (economically weaker section) quota and if a draw of lots was used to choose the candidates. The applicant had also asked for a report on the draw of lots and if any of these schools had not followed the procedure and what action had been taken or would be taken against the guilty school.

 

Kumar, a social activist, is working to help children of weaker sections admitted to public schools under the EWS quota. People living in slums and villages around Vasant Kunj had applied for admission under EWS quota to various public schools in the area. "However, Ryan International and Vasant Valley were found to be not following the law and thus evading admissions to these children," Kumar said.

 

While Ryan International gave admission to poor children as per the mandatory rules and procedure, Vasant Valley gave neither the desired information nor admission to the children who had applied.

 

Kumar appealed to the first appellate authority but when no information was forthcoming, he appealed to the CIC. CIC issued a showcause notice to the authorities asking them to provide details but nothing satisfactory was provided following which the penalty was imposed.

 

Govt fined for not giving admission info-Delhi-Cities-The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Atul,

 

Many thanks for posting this.

 

However, Sidmis has already posted this news item earlier:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/9624-govt-fined-not-giving-admission-info.html

 

I request you to please read:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/5401-right-information-news-posting-discussions-policy.html

 

In case you are posting any news item, it is better to check if it has already been posted before by some other member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun

I know about this case .Some information regarding the Vasant Valley school was asked for from the Department of Education .The Department asked the school regarding that information which the school refused as they said that they are not covered under RTI .The Judge fined Department of Education for this instead of taking action against the Vasant Valley School which refused the information.

 

The Person who wanted this information is not any parent but an unscrupulous NGO person Mr Prakash kumar who knew about this loop whole in the RTI act and is making money out of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti

The penalty imposed is retained by the government. I don't see how someone can make money out of use of RTI. And there is no loophole in the Act but it is the conduct of the education department that is lacking. Had they shown reasonable cause for not giving information they could have easily avoided penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun

There is a loop whole .Public schools that are under District office are not not covered under RTI.So when Govt District office asks for any information from a public school which they refuse to give then in that case Govt Officials are held responsible .This is what has happened in Vasant Valley case .

 

 

Here school is not fined but instead govt officials as the school is public and cannot be thus fined under the RTI case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti

This is incorrect. In accordance with Sec 5(5) of the Act, if the District Office asks for any information from school and the school refuses to give that information, the officer who is guilty of refusing information shall be held responsible and not the Govt Department. And in any case, there is no way the information seeker can make any money out of this arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Satish Gupta

I find it disturbing to accuse others of misconduct without any evidence.

 

Calling Mr. Prakash Kumar "unscrupulous NGO person Mr Prakash kumar who knew about this loop whole in the RTI act and is making money out of it", is a serious accusation.

 

Please tell us on what basis you have made such an accusation. How much money from this fine went into pocket of Prakash Kumar? What was the loophole in RTI? How did Mr. Prakash Kumar benfitted from this transction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vijendra singh

Now ,the Education deptt must take stern action against the erring public school authorities. IC could mention in decision that school authority be punished by the education officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun

The school authority says that it has High Court stay order according to which its their wish if they want to share such information or not .

 

In this case how can Govt officials be held responsible.I want to remind you again that Public Schools don't come under the RTI act .When Vasant Valley was asked to give that information ,they refused .Now in this situation what can govt District do?

 

As far as Mr. Prakash Kumar is concerned he is in very much touch of the school authorities and is in a very good terms with them yet instead of asking them he filed the RTI to District office knowing that Vasant Valley has got the court's Stay order regarding the information sharing.He just wanted to make his presence felt to his NGO business can flourish.

 

My suggestion is :either Public Schools should be brought under the RTI act or District office should not be held responsible if they are asked any information regarding a Public School which they refuse to give often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

Prashant,

 

It appear that you have first hand information about this matter. That's good.

 

I also agree to the fact that the Public Schools should be brought under the purview of RTI.

 

But I don't agree to your suggestion to spare the Education Dept. If the edu dept. holds some information and are denying the same to the public then they should be penalised. There should be no doubt on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti

If the disclosure of information was actually stayed by court, then it could have been legitimately be denied under Sec 8(1)(b). There is no penalty in that case. Unless the malafide intent of education dept. is proved there cannot be any penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis
As far as Mr. Prakash Kumar is concerned he is in very much touch of the school authorities and is in a very good terms with them yet instead of asking them he filed the RTI to District office knowing that Vasant Valley has got the court's Stay order regarding the information sharing.He just wanted to make his presence felt to his NGO business can flourish

 

It's better if we restrict our discussions on the materials published in the paper. I don't think it is proper & will serve any purpose commenting upon the actions and intentions of any particular individual or organisation in the spirit of the Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun
Prashant,

 

It appear that you have first hand information about this matter. That's good.

 

I also agree to the fact that the Public Schools should be brought under the purview of RTI.

 

But I don't agree to your suggestion to spare the Education Dept. If the edu dept. holds some information and are denying the same to the public then they should be penalized. There should be no doubt on it.

 

Well the school still refuses to give that info and has got stay orders in this regard for not showing that info to the Edu District.

 

The solution i would like to reiterate again that either Public schools should be brought under RTI act or Edu Dept should not be held responsible for not getting information from them as many times schools refuse to give info.

 

 

@sidmis ,ok i'll not go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Satish Gupta

The public schools are already under RTI. These schools received public land at low prices, in return for promise from the schools, that they will admit students from poor families. Now they cannot refuse to release the number of such students admitted.

 

The Dept of Edu. has the responsibility to enforce the law. If the school refuses to provide the information, the PIO of Dept Edu should say that in response to RTI application. And the Dept Edu has an obligation to tell the public what steps it took to make sure that the public schools admitted students from poor families.

 

The PIO of Dept Edu was fined for not following the RTI, if he had responded that school had failed to provide the information and that Dept had taken no steps to enforce the law on the public schools, then there would have been no fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun

I am afraid you are wrong Public Schools don't come under RTI .

 

Regarding the case above Mr Shailesh Gandhi the commisioner of RTI who imposed fine on the Edu Department knowing well that School was at fault ,is on the news in Times of India for his cynical nature and voices are growing strong against him for removing him from his position .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

voices are growing strong against him for removing him from his position .

 

Wow :confused:

 

That's news to us. Would you plz tel us know more about these voices?

 

Anyway if that really happens it will be a real loss. :mad:

 

To get a clear prospective I am putting the relevant extracts from the decision for the members.

 

Decision:

It appears from the facts before the Commission that the PIO has not supplied the information as directed by the First Appellate Authority. This means that the PIO had supplied incomplete information in the first instance and did not supply the complete information even after a specific order to do so by the First Appellate authority an officer who is senior to him.

The appeal is allowed.

From the evidence given by the appellant it appears that the PIO did not follow the orders of the First appellate authority. The PIO appears to have violated the provisions of the RTI act and provided incomplete information to the appellant.

 

It is apparent from the facts before us that the PIO has violated the law by not furnishing the information and has disregarded the orders of the First Appellate Authority, who is also an officer senior to him in the Public authority.

 

From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. .

 

It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).

 

The PIO will provide the complete information to the Appellant before 5th November.

 

The PIO is directed to present himself before the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him. He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 17th November, 2008 at 2.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-18102008-05.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun

@Satish Gupta

 

Only those schools that received public land at low prices, come under RTI and not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
@Satish Gupta

 

Only those schools that received public land at low prices, come under RTI and not all.

 

Clarification:

 

"Public School" in India is a misnomer. Like the Delhi Public School (DPS) or Hyderabad Public School (HPS). These are not technically "Public Schools".

 

I think some posters in this thread mean "Government Schools" when they mention "Public School".

 

======

 

Prashant,

 

Please look at it strictly from the RTI Act view:

 

1. Who is the custodian of the information ? Its the School

2. Can the School be directly asked for information ? It is not a Public Authority

3. Can any other Public Authority access that information ? Yes, the DEO can. Sec 2(f) defines information as: "......and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"

 

That is exactly what the applicant did.

 

The school denied to give the information to the DEO therefore the DEO denied information. Applicant appealed and the FAA ordered disclosure. It is then the duty of the PIO to collect information from the school by hook or by crook. It seems you are very well aware about this case and must also therefore, be aware of how DEO's work in this country. Just accompany a DEO when he visits a school or be present at a a school when a DEP visits it. You will know.

 

====================

"voices are growing strong against him for removing him from his position"

 

Just go through some old threads/posts in this forum. Members have been shouting from the rooftops aagainst various CIC's of States, IC's in the CIC and IC's in the SIC for the same result. Not even one has been removed with the exception of the CIC of UPSIC (for reasons which were different than incompetence).

 

CIC/IC's can only be removed by following the procedure as laid down in Sec 14 of the RTI Act. Not by just "voices". If that were so, many IC's would be leading a nice life in retirement by now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun

I am just bringing to your notice about the misuse of rti.

 

The case has now been filed in the High court now against the RTI commissioners decision ,lets see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Prashant,

 

I request you to go through various HC orders in relation to RTI uploaded in http://www.rtiindia.info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

There are two intriguing points that I notice in this case. The PIO didnot totally fail in his duty. Out of the two Schools for which the info was sought, he furnished info regarding one. He could not furnish info regarding the other. What was the reason? Was it because the School refused to part with the info? Or was it that even after obtaining the info from the School he refused to part with the info? If it is the second one, the appellate authority has correctly ordered to furnish the info. If it is the first one, how come the appellate authority, who is also in the same Department, did not consider this aspect? He can not force the PIO to furnish an info that the PIO does not possess. The second intriguing point is reg Sec 5(4) and 5(5) of the Act. The order of the CIC reads as - "If he contends that he had sought the assistance of any other officers for discharging his duties under Section 5 (4) of the RTI act, and that these officers are guilty of contravening the provisions of the Act as per Section 5 (5), he will name them in his written submissions and also direct them to come to the Commission for the Showcause hearing". Does the term 'officers' include School authorities also? In my opinion it should. Above all what happend on 17/11/2008?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Does the term 'officers' include School authorities also? In my opinion it should. Above all what happend on 17/11/2008?

 

Sec 5(4) and 5(5) come into play ONLY if it is the same Public Authority ( to which the PIO belongs). Otherwise it is transfer under Sec 6(3) to another PIO of another PA.

 

In this case the schools are not Public Authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

I had raised this issue only since the CIC order refers to Sec 5(4) and 5(5) - "If he contends that he had sought the assistance of any other officers for discharging his duties under Section 5 (4) of the RTI act, and that these officers are guilty of contravening the provisions of the Act as per Section 5 (5), he will name them in his written submissions and also direct them to come to the Commission for the Showcause hearing". Apparently the School concerned is not a PA. But the Education Dept., which is a PA can access the info. They have to call for the info from the School. Can such calling for the info be brought under the ambit of 'sought the assistance' mentioned in Sec 5(4) and Sec 5(5) of the Act. Otherwise, why the CIC order states as quoted? The only other possibility is that the School has furnished the info to some other officer in the Education Dept., who has not given it to the PIO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquariun
There are two intriguing points that I notice in this case. The PIO didnot totally fail in his duty. Out of the two Schools for which the info was sought, he furnished info regarding one. He could not furnish info regarding the other. What was the reason? Was it because the School refused to part with the info? Or was it that even after obtaining the info from the School he refused to part with the info? If it is the second one, the appellate authority has correctly ordered to furnish the info. If it is the first one, how come the appellate authority, who is also in the same Department, did not consider this aspect? He can not force the PIO to furnish an info that the PIO does not possess. The second intriguing point is reg Sec 5(4) and 5(5) of the Act. The order of the CIC reads as - "If he contends that he had sought the assistance of any other officers for discharging his duties under Section 5 (4) of the RTI act, and that these officers are guilty of contravening the provisions of the Act as per Section 5 (5), he will name them in his written submissions and also direct them to come to the Commission for the Showcause hearing". Does the term 'officers' include School authorities also? In my opinion it should. Above all what happend on 17/11/2008?

 

 

I totally agree .

In this case School was let off because it does not come RTI act ,my suggestion is that all schools should come under RTI whether they have taken land from Govt or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Harisrmite
      By Harisrmite
      I want to discontinue B.Sc. course from Indian Academy Degree college- Autonomous, Bangalore as I want to pursue B.Tech. When asked for my certificates management is demanding to pay full course fee of 3 years to return my documents. I want my certificates without paying any extra money. Please help.
       
    • nk agarwal
      By nk agarwal
      In one of my recent 2nd Appeal, IC of a SIC imposed a "token" penalty of Rs 2500/-on PIO admitting a delay of more than 100 days; the IC was well aware of different judgements on Penalty by Hon'b'e Apex court and High Courts wherein it is clearly made out that the ICs have to take a decision on   either  penalty or no penalty  but, cannot change the prescribed the rate of penalty. 
      IS THIS NOT MAKING A JOKE OUT OF RTI ACT-2005 by SIC
      What is the solution before the Appellant now?

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy