Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'directorate'.
Found 4 results
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in MediaNEW DELHI: The provisions of RTI Act apply on private schools also which are governed by a law such as the Delhi Education Act, the Central Information Commission has held. The case relates to an ex-employee of Jindal Public School who filed an RTI application with Directorate of Education seeking a certified copy of service book and other details from her past employer. The Directorate provided the information available with them but the school refused to furnish the reply saying RTI Act does not apply on it. information sought by its ex-employee, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said the school is duty bound under sections four and eight of Delhi Education Act 1973 to abide by the regulatory conditions of service, payment of salaries as prescribed for which school has to maintain records which provide an "inherent and implied" right to information to their employees. Read more at: Provisions of RTI Act apply on private schools also: CIC - The Economic Times
In a private engineering institute/college, affilated to the AICTE, recognised under the University of Pune, what are the rules and regulation regarding the detention of the student studying in that institute? And what is the actual procedure and role of the University as well as the institute in the detention of the student? As per the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994, what are the directives of the act to the University and Institute regarding this issue? And what are the directives of the Maharashtra State Government and Directorate of Technical Education to the University and Institute regarding the same? The above mentioned questions concern a detention consisting of absence from lectures and practicals for a semester.
New Delhi, May 3: Charging the Union Urban Development Ministry's Estates Directorate with showing extremely casual approach to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued a show-cause notice to its officials for mala fide suppression of information to an applicant. "The entire case to the Commission reeks of prejudice, vengeance and extremely casual approach to the RTI Act by the respondents (Estates Directorate)," Information Commissioner O P Kejariwal said, issuing a show-cause notice to the officials as to why penalty should not be imposed for "mala fide suppression of information". Allowing information seeker Manoj Kumar Pandey to ask for the copies of all documents, including file notings, the Commission also directed the Estates officials to open all files pertaining to the information sought. Earlier, after examining the response of Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), the Commission said, "it noted with great concern that instead of addressing the query of the applicant, the officials had gone far out of their way by making demands of payment." Pandey had filed an application with the Estates Directorate of the Ministry in September last year seeking information related to his earlier two representations with it for allotment of a flat. After receiving a letter within a month did not contain any signature and date, the information seeker had filed an appeal with the Directorate in October. In reply to his appeal, the Directorate had stated that an amount of Rs 1,07,335 was due on him, which led him to approach CIC in December last year. (Agencies) Chennai Online News Service - View News
Shrawan posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsCentral Information Commission Decision No.285/IC(A)/2006 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00653 Dated, the 20th September, 2006 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Pradipta Dutta, B-141 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi â€“ 110 019 Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Income Tax (Legal & Research) (DIT), 3rd floor, Drumshaped Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi- 110 002. DECISION Facts of the Case: The appellant had sought certain information in the form of queries, whichhave been duly responded by the CPIO and the appellate authority as well. Hehas however filed an appeal before the Commission against the reply of theappellate authority and prayed that the CPIO of DIT (L&R) be directed to furnishinformation with respect to his following queries: â€œKindly inform why ITOs have been posted at DIT (L&R) even though there is no corresponding post in the same pay-scale at ITJSection, CBDT. What functions are the ITOs expected to discharge at DIT (L&R)? Kindly inform why ITOs at DIT (L&R) are being forced, under threat of disciplinary action, to perform the functions of an Asstt.Commissioner without being paid officiating pay.â€ Commissionâ€™s Decision: In its oft-repeated decisions, the Commission has advised the informationseekers that they ought not seek the views and comments of the CPIO on the questions asked by them. Yet, in the garb of seeking information mainly for redressal of their grievances, applications from requesters are filed. The CPIOâ€™s in turn, have also ventured to answer them. Thus, the information seekers as providers have erred in interpreting the definition of information. A CPIO of any public authority is not expected to create and generate a fresh, an information because it has been sought by an appellant. The appellant is, therefore, advised to specify the required information, which may be provided, if it exists, in the form in which it is sought by him. The information sought relate to duties and responsibilities of ITOs deployed at different locations and the salary or compensation paid to them.Under Section 4(1) of the Act, all the public authorities are required to disclose such information as above. Had it been done by the respondent, the CPIO could have informed the applicant about the source where from he could have obtained the information. The need for filing application for information and this appeal could have thus been avoided. In pursuance of the principle of maximum disclosure, as u/s 4(1) of the Act, the CPIO is directed to disseminate the information so that in future, such applications are minimized. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner Download the Decision from Download segment.