CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/01077 dated Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/01077 dated Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19 Appellant - Shri N.R. Gupta Respondent - Directorate of Training & Technical Education, GNCT, Delhi Facts: By a request of Shri N.R. Gupta of Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi sought the following information from Jt. Secretary (TTE), Directorate of Training & Technical Education, GNCT Delhi: Who teaches (defined post) the following practical subjects to the students of various Engineering Diploma Courses? a) Workshop Shop Practice-I ES 126 b) Workshop Practice-I ME-130 c) Workshop Practice-II ME 230 d) Workshop Technology ME 430 e) Manufacturing Process-I ME 331 f) Manufacturing Process-II ME 431 g) Manufacturing Process-III ME 531 h) Electrical Workshop-I EE-334. To this he received a response on from Shri Mukesh Prashad PIO & Jt. Secretary TTE as follows: As per the AICTE publication of 1990 the Foreman Instructor plans, delivers and evaluates theoretical and workshop instructions. The Lecturer who plans and implements the instructions in the laboratory manage the practical subjects in the laboratory. As clarified by the Govt. of India Dte. of Education & Social Welfare vide letter No.F.23-16/69-T-5 dated the lowest formation in the teaching faculty is Lecturer both in Engg. College and in the Polytechnics. Aggrieved by this response Shri Gupta in his appeal before Addl. Secretary, DTTE of pointed out the following: Workshop Instructors have been assigned and also performing teaching of the practical subjects in the workshop. The photo copy 1

2 of the time table with the teaching loan of the workshop Instructors is enclosed for your kind reference. Appellant Shri Gupta also attached a calendar of Pusa Polytechnic, Mechanical Engineering Workshop indicating the Teachers for various classes. Appellate Authority Shri J.P. Rai in his order of , however, has ruled as follows: As per norms issued by AICTE in 1999 as per Point No teaching staff cadre, which includes lecturer, Sr. Lecturers, HOS/Lecturer (Sr. Grade) & Principal, is different from workshop staff which includes Workshop Supdt., Foreman Instructor, Workshop Instructor & Workshop Attendant. It can clearly be seen from point No of the above-mentioned norms that Workshop Instructor belongs to the category under Workshop Staff and not teaching staff. Jobs and responsibilities in respect of lecturer and workshop staff is totally different as can be seen from the copies enclosed which has been extracted from the norms of AICTE issued in Further as per AICTE notification dated there is no teaching contact hours mentioned for workshop instructor under the heading workload of a teacher. Also on perusal of the photocopy submitted by Shri N.R. Gupta it is seen that even though it is not certified copy that there is no teaching hours mentioned therein. In view of the above, the appeal of Sh. N.R. Gupta is not sustained and the same is dismissed. Shri Gupta has, therefore, moved a second appeal before us with a point wise rebuttal of the response received from Appellate Authority and concluding with the following prayer: Therefore, it is requested that Directorate of Training & Technical Education Officers may please be directed to confess that Workshop Instructor teaches Practical Subjects in Workshop. In their response to the appeal notice Shri Mukesh Prashad and Sh. J.P. Rai in a letter of signed jointly by them, with the following arguments : 2

3 1. The appellant has been provided answer to his query in the manner it exists and not in the manner in which it has been requested since the information did not exist in the manner in which requested. Therefore, there is no denial or concealment. By splitting hair of the provided answer, the appellant is making his own guess work and interpretations aiming to mislead the Ld. CIC to direct the SPIO to declare the Workshop Instructors as teaching staff so that they can claim the recently granted benefits of enhancement of the age of superannuating from 60 to 62 to the teaching staff of the Diploma Level and Degree Level Institution under the Government of Delhi as per the recommendations of the AICTE accepted by the Govt. of Delhi. This is evident from the prayer or relief sought by Shri N.R. Gupta appellant in his another appeal filed before the Ld. CIC vide F. No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00405 (copy enclosed as Annexure-II). 2. A perusal of the type of information requested by the appellant reveals that his was not so much a request for information but was a question seeking answer clarification and opinion of the SPIO, which does not fall under the definition of Information under sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act2005.The Ld. CIC in the several decisions viz (i) Dr. D.V. Rao vs. the SPIO and the FAA File No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dt (ii) Sh. A.X.S. Jiwan vs. PIO and the FAA Appeal No. 20/IC(A)/2006., F. No.11/97/2006-CI dt and (iii) Shri Rajiv Gupta, Mumbai vs. SPIO & FAA DGFT Zonal Office, Mumbai Appeal No.274/ICPB/2006.F. No.PBA/06/231 dated ,has held that the SPIO is not required to reply to the queries that it is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, question to the public authorities about the nature and quality of their actions. The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his queries. Yet this Public Authority has tried to provide the answer clarification to the appellant on the basis of the authoritative information of the AICTE available with the custodian of record at that point of time We heard the appeal on The following are present: 1. Shri N.R. Gupta, Appellant 2. Shri Mahesh Pal, Assisting Appellant. 3. Shri Ramesh Chander, Dy. Director. Shri Ramesh Chander DD (E-1), DTTE, has presented a letter of authorization from PIO and Jt. Secretary Sh. Mukesh Prasad, which has been placed on record. During the hearing Shri N.R. Gupta, appellant, presented a 3

4 copy of a letter of from Shri R.L. Yadav, Principal, Pusa Polytechnic to him stating as follows: I hereby submit that the Practical classes for the subjects mentioned in the said letter are being taken in group by the Workshop Instructors of the concerned trades under administrative and supervision of Workshop Supdt. He also pointed out that if it was not the rule on the subject, which has been sought by him in the initial application but the factual position of who teaches, which in his view has not been answered. Respondent Shri Ramesh Chander on the other hand stated that the information has been sought so that Workshop Instructors can get seniority benefits from the Department. DECISION NOTICE We have perused the file and heard the parties. Sec. 6(2) of the RTI Act reads as follows: Sec. 6(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. It is quite clear, therefore, that it is not the business of the PIO to enquire into the reasons for applicant s requesting information. If in fact the Department is using Workshop Instructors as teachers, whether this is covered by the rules or not, such information requires to be provided in the interest of transparency and accountability, which are the basic hallmarks of the RTI Act 2005.The question asked is not of norms, but of practice In this case Shri R.L. Yadav, Principal of the Pusa Polytechnic has stated clearly that classes in certain subjects are being taken by Workshop Instructors, which clearly means that they are teaching these classes. This leaves the DTTE with only two options (i) either find that the teaching undertaken in the Pusa 4

5 Polytechnic is unauthorized and, therefore, initiate action against Shri R.L. Yadav, Principal, or (ii) admit that in practice such teaching is admissible at the discretion of the Principal and inform appellant accordingly. Shri Mukesh Prashad PIO, DTTE is, therefore, directed to initiate action on either of the two points mentioned above within one week of the date of issue of this Decision Notice, under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar