Dear Mohit
Having carefully considered your points
1) The case you are referring to is LPA 196/2004 'Rakesh Goel v. Montford School".
2) I am unable to locate the Nov 2007 "amendments" to DSEAR by LG as described by you. Please locate an online copy so we can discuss the implications.
3) Having read the Ganguly report and also the court orders in LPA 196/2004, I am not inclined to agree that DSEA has been amended, although some of the rules ("R") could have been changed after the court orders. The DSEA continues to maintain that class 1 is the entry point and there is no need for schools to be recognised. In fact the Ganguly report brings out clearly the 3 clauses of DSEAR which are the legal basis for admissions including the one I had alluded to.
4) However, you are correct, the Right to Education Act (a central act), supercedes the DSEAR (a state act), and I have not been tracking that Act or its Constitutional implications. I'm also not sure if the RTE extends to nursery admissions.
5) I had not posted my Part-2 in this thread.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Mohit Goel <mr_mohitg@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Sarbajit
>
> thanks for your below reply. I have receive below post/reply only, not received
> 2nd post related to HC rulling etc.
> I would like clarify certain points on below post for the benefit of public
> since i have gone through all literature/act/circular of DOE in last 6 months
>
> Kindly note inserts (kindly do not view my explanation as an attempt to proof
> something wrong , but just sharing info for better clarity ).
>
> From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@...>
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 11 July, 2010 10:43:53 AM
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: CIC contravene rulings on section 2(F)--bars PIO for
> not to provide informat
>
>
> Dear Mohit
>
> I have given considerable thought to your problem. I am dividing my reply into
> to posts. This post is about the merits of your RTI request. The second post
> will be about the appeals / CIC / HC rulings, and why this is a typical example
> of IC(SG)'s slipshod and CORRUPT decisions.
>
> 1) Your RTI query was about admissions to "nursery" section at DPS Rohini.
>
> 2) You will find (and I found this about about 6 years back when I was faced
> with the same problem for my son) that the DoE is not the "appropriate
> authority" for registration / recognisition of such schools. For purposes of the
> DSEAR, the starting class is Class 1. The DoE consequently cannot summon info
> for nursery classes and information.
> Mohit 7/12: as per elaborative amendments made to DESEAR act by Honble LG on
> date 24.11.2007, all admission in pre primary -preschool are to be regulated acc
> to guidelines specified in amendment. These amendments were made incorporating
> Gangully committe report and decision of Honble High court WP 196/2006 to
> regulate nursery admission.
> Further, under section 50 of DESEAR rules, DOE can call for any information if
> required from recognized schools within delhi. This fact was upheld by Honble
> High court in rulling related to Purna Pranja school
> In dec, 09 DOE came out with stick guidelines on admission . Admission
> committee( Parents+ principal of school), Monitoring cell of DOE were made to
> regulate admission process and to avoid any favorism.
> since school(s) was supposed to follow DOE, calling for information by DOE under
> section 2(f) should not have been a problem.
> 3) You will find that there is no need for schools to be recognised till class
> 8. Mohit 7/12: as per DESEAR rule/act, DOE regulate schools/it procedure. all
> school need to be recognized irrespective of standard or class they will run in
> their premises. This clause is also mandatory under Right to Education act 2009
> as well.
>
> 4) You will find that the regulating / registering authority for such private
> pre-schools is usually the MCD. Mohit 7/12: for aided school MCD can monitor but
> for unaided private school DOE can regulate school. This act gives DOE power to
> administrate school, take over school, cancel recognition, inspect school etc
>
> 5) You will find that the legal loophole exploited by the schools is a section
> of the DSEAR which provide for admission based on a) Written test or b) results
> in a previous "class".
> Mohit 7/12: no written test, interview can happen for nursery as per new
> guidelines.
>
> 6) Unfortunately I can't download all the PDFs from DoE website as many of them
> are "corrupted".
> Mohit 7/12: i have specified major regulatory frame work above from DOE
> website.
>
> 7) The entire DESEAR admissions regime has been overturned by corrupt social
> jurists in collusion with the Delhi High Court rulings which have legitimised
> the nursery / KG admission process.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Mohit Goel <mr_mohitg@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr sarbajit
> >
> > Kindly note appeal no : CIC/SG/A/2010/000962 .
> >
> > Further as per DSEAR under section 50, director can regulate school and call
> >for
> >
> > the informations from school if required. landmark judgement in this case was
> > given by J. Shri Sanjeev Khaana in Purna Praja school. Even Mr Wajjat has used
>
> > powers of DSEAR to facilitate section 2f.
> >
> > Beside this in my above appeal and other appeal no 961, Deptt was guilty of not
> >
> > furnishing timely info.. show cause notices were issued but on show cause
> > hearing date only PIO was present, Deemed PIO was absent. We were not heard by
>
> > IC and matter was closed citing that no penality will be levied as on same
> > deemed PIO penality was issued in other case.. believe me i worked on my case
> > for 2 months before hearing and i was highly demotivated with decision since i
>
> > wanted to ensure that schools donot harrsse parents any more
> >
> > citing some imp judgement/cases on section 2f for ur ref ( apologies for making
> >
> > email lenghty but i had done my homework which i wanted to share with all)
> >
> > 1. CIC/WB/A/2007/00179 dated 14-2-2007 : Complainant: Shri Abid Khan vs
>
> > Directorate of Education, GNCT Delhi, ordered given by Sh. Wajjat
> > Habibullah , where decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court of Justice Badar
> >
> > Durrez Ahmed dt : 8-3-07 was cited as below and decision given in favor of
> >
> > appellantby Sh. Wajjat Habibullah
> >
> > These writ petitions can be disposed of by setting aside this direction of
> > permitting the private respondents to inspect the records of the petitioner at
>
> > their premises. At the same time, it is also directed that the Dte. of Edn may
>
> > provide the information available with the Dte. of Edn. to the applicants. In
> > case the information is not already available with the Dte. of Edn, the same
> >may
> >
> > be summoned from the concerned schools. After obtaining the requested
> > information, it will be for the Dte. of Edn to supply the information to the
> > private respondents/ applicants.â€This decision is in accord with Section 2 (f)
>
> > read with 2 (j) of RTI Act, under which documents accessible to the Public
> > Authority will come under the definition of information u/s 2(f), but
> >inspection
> >
> > can only be allowed u/s 2 (j) by the public authority which actually holds the
>
> > documents which in this case are held by private bodies which are not public
> > authorities.
> >
> > 1. Decision of Delhi High court --- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7265 OF
> > 2007- POORNA PRAJNA PUBLIC SCHOOL vs CENTRAL Information COMMISSION &
> > OTHERS ruled by stated
> >
> >
> > Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access
> > information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―information‖ as
> > defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the
> > control of the public authority‖ used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will
> > include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any
>
> > other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority
> >and
> >
> > the said term ―private body‖ has been used to distinguish and in
> > contradistinction to the term ―public authority‖ as defined in Section 2(h) of
>
> > the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access,
>
> > under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f)
>
> > of the RTI Act and has to be furnished.
> >
> > Under Rule 50(xviii) of the DSE Rules, the Directorate of Education can issue
> > instructions and can call upon the school to furnish information required on
> > conditions mentioned therein being satisfied. Rule 50 therefore authorizes the
>
> > public authority to have access to information or records of a private body
> >i.e.
> >
> > a private unaided school
> >
> > 1. Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00315 dated 20-3-2007 -- Shri Ramesh N.
> > Gandhi, Ulhasnagar vs Hq. SWAC, Gandhinagar (Guj) , Decision given by Shri
> >
> > Wajjat Habibullah on dated 1-8-2008
> >
> >
> > Even if we were to concede that the Air Force School Jodhpur is a private body,
> >
> > by dint of its head being a serving officer and serving as head in that
> > capacity, by the very act of registration such an officer has the authority to
>
> > access information regarding the school and is therefore required to service
> >RTI
> >
> > applications pertaining to such accessible information.
> >
> > 1. Appeal: No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00127-- Shri Jehangir B. Gai vs Bureau of
> > Secondary Education, decision given by Shri O.P Kejriwal on dated :
>
> > 21st July, 2006.
> >
> >
> > However, going by the definition of the term information under Section 2(f) of
>
> > the RTI Act, which includes ‘information relating to any private body which can
> >
> > be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in
> > force’. The Respondents are thus directed to obtain the information from the
> > CISCE
> >
> > 1. Appeal F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01083 ---Shri Bhoj Raj Sahu vs Securities
>
> > and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), dated 25th May, 2009
> >
> > Section 2(f) is clearly an autonomous and independent provision within the
> >RTI
> >
> > Act, in which an information in the hands of a private body but accessible
> > otherwise under the law by a public authority, has been rendered
> >accessible
> >
> > to an RTI-applicant.
> >
> >
> > 1. Decision No.714/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2007/00104 Dated, the 18th
> > May, 2007.and Decision No. 1231 /IC(A)/2007 -- Shri D.K. Chopra vs
> > Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi- Decision by Shri M.M Ansari as below
>
> >
> >
> > Ø The PIO is directed to obtain u/s 2(f) of the Act, the minutes of the
> > Managing Committee meetings from March 2002 to March 2007 from the school and
> > provide a copy to the appellant.
> >
> > Ø A major objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and
> >accountability
> >
> > in functioning of the institutions, particularly the service providers that
> >have
> >
> > considerable interface with a larger section of people
> >
> > Ø The PIO’s contention that the minutes of the MCs are not included in
> > Annexure-II of Delhi Education Act and, therefore, he cannot acquire them is
> >not
> >
> > acceptable, as Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 has an overriding effect on all
>
> > such provisions that come in the way of promotion of transparency in
> >functioning
> >
> > of the schools, the activities of which are governmental in nature. The PIO is
>
> > directed again to furnish the information at the earliest under intimation to
> > the Commission.
> >
> > 1. Appeal No. 914/SIC-ASR/2006, order given by Andhra Pradesh State
>
> > Information Commissioner Case between N. Subba Rao (President, Bapatla
> > Engineering College Non-Teaching Staff Association) and the Principal,
> > Bapatla Engineering College, Bapatla Excerpts of the order include:
> >
> >
> > “ The Commission is of the view that the stand taken by the Principal, Bapatla
>
> > Engineering College, Bapatla appears to be wrong, which is against the
> > definition of ‘information’, as defined u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 it is
> > clear “information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a
> > Public Authority â€
> >
> > 1. Another order relates to an article appeared in Times of India titled
>
> > “Pvt Medical, Engg Colleges Under Purview of RTI Act†dated 27th Sep ’08,
>
> > which clearly states that “Private medical and engineering non-aided
> > colleges can no longer choose to hide information sought under the RTI act,
> > 2005. In a landmark order, information commissioner for Nagpur and Amravati
> > Vilas Patil has made it compulsory for all private engineering and medical
> >
> > colleges to reveal information under RTI to every applicant. These colleges had
> >
> > earlier refused to provide information on the pretext that they were beyond the
> >
> > purview of the Act.â€
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@>
> > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 11:16:51 PM
> > Subject: [rti_india] Re: CIC contravene rulings on section 2(F)--bars PIO for
> > not to provide informat
> >
> >
> > Hi Mohit
> >
> > 1) I need to know the CIC appeal no. or date of decision so that I can read the
> >
> > order in your case.
> >
> > 2) Are there any specific sections (regulatory sections) of DSEAR (Dellhi
> >State
> >
> > Education Act and Rules 1973) which enable the DoE GNCTD tp lawfully access the
> >
> > info you require AGAINST A PENDING COMPLAINT against the school concerned.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Mohit Goel <mr_mohitg@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Mr sarbajit
> > >
> > > Need your guidance on one of the ruling of CIC which i feel, contravenes
> > >various
> > >
> > > High court rulings, CIC own rulings. I have tried to get help on below case
> > >from
> > >
> > > others but not encouraging response so far .. request if u can advise on
> >below
> >
> >
> > >
> > > i have filled an RTI application to Deppt of Education for providing me some
>
> > > info related to admission procedure + admitted candidate of a private
> > >recognised
> > >
> > > school in delhi.
> > >
> > > DOE replied that 2 questions of RTI cant be replied since school do not
> >furnish
> >
> > >
> > > the req info under Delhi school act and they dont have information
> available.
> > >
> > > In my 1st appeal i advise FAA auth that information can be called for under
> > > section 2(f) and supported my case with lots of High court, CIC, SC rulings
> >but
> >
> > >
> > > FAA didnt recognized those.
> > >
> > > i filled the 2nd appeal at CIC and during hearing all my arguments etc were
> >set
> >
> > >
> > > aside by commission and IC rulled that if information is not available with
> >DOE
> >
> > >
> > > then nothing can be done and passed a rulling that Commission do not agree
> >with
> >
> > >
> > > this plea( plea of section 2(f) given by appellant) and the information which
> >
> > > under law or rules is expected to be held by the public authority is the
> > > information that has to be provided under RTI
> > >
> > > IC have not taken notice of gravity of case , the use of info req in the
> > >benefit
> > >
> > > of public as said school was discriminating on admission procedure and were
> > > favoring candidates which was against DOE guidelines. Information needed to
> > > usher transparency but IC overruled all arguments.
> > >
> > > Surprisingly on section 2(f) various important decisions have been given to
> > > facilitated transparency,as follows
> > >
> > > 1.Decision of Delhi High court --- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7265 OF 2007-
> > > POORNA PRAJNA PUBLIC SCHOOL vs CENTRAL Information COMMISSION
> > >
> > > 2.Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00315 dated 20-3-2007 -- Shri Ramesh N. Gandhi,
> > > Ulhasnagar vs Hq. SWAC, Gandhinagar (Guj) , Decision given by Shri Wajjat
> > > Habibullah on dated 1-8-2008
> > >
> > > 3.Appeal: No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00127-- Shri Jehangir B. Gai vs Bureau of
> >Secondary
> >
> > >
> > > Education, decision given by Shri O.P Kejriwal on dated : 21st July, 2006.
> > >
> > > 4.Appeal F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01083 ---Shri Bhoj Raj Sahu vs Securities and
> > > Exchange Board of India (SEBI), dated 25th May, 2009
> > >
> > > 5.Decision No.714/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2007/00104 Dated, the 18th May,
> > > 2007.and Decision No. 1231 /IC(A)/2007 -- Shri D.K. Chopra vs Directorate of
>
> > > Education, GNCT of Delhi- Decision by Shri M.M Ansari
> > >
> > > 6.Appeal No. 914/SIC-ASR/2006, order given by Andhra Pradesh State
> >Information
> >
> >
> > > Commissioner Case between N. Subba Rao (President, Bapatla Engineering
> >College
> >
> >
> > > Non-Teaching Staff Association) and the Principal, Bapatla Engineering
> >College,
> >
> > >
> > > Bapatla Excerpts of the order include:
> > >
> > > 7.CIC/WB/A/2007/00179 dated 14-2-2007 : Complainant: Shri Abid Khan vs
> > > Directorate of Education, GNCT Delhi, ordered given by Sh. Wajjat Habibullah
>
> > >
> > > The above judgement supported section 2(f) for ushering transparency. DOE has
> >
> > > power under section 50 of Delhi school act to call for any information from
> > > school if required .
> > >
> > > I am wondering why IC overruled all these aspects.
> > >
> > > Further,in ref to my other RTI with DOE, show cause notice was issued to
> > > PIO/deemed PIO for not providing information on time.
> > >
> > > On the day of show cause notice i was present but i was not called for
> >hearing
> >
> >
> > > since deemed PIO was absent and only PIO was present.. i was told that IC has
> >
> > > recently issued penalty on deemed PIO and IC will decide whether to issue
> >show
> >
> >
> > > cause again to deemed PIO for appearance or to close file without levying
> > > penalty and this will take some time may be next 4 -5 days.. i spent my 2
> >hours
> >
> > >
> > > waiting in the reception area and after that i was told such feedback which
> >was
> >
> > >
> > > again not acceptable since there was clear cut case of penalty
> > >
> > > request members to suggest me on these 2 issues
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Mohit Goel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@>
> > > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wed, 7 July, 2010 11:52:47 PM
> > > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Open Letter to Mr Habibullah in File
> > > "CIC/WB/C/2010/000155"
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Bhaskar
> > >
> > > It is nice to know that IC(SG) still has some supporters left.
> > >
> > > What you are using is the same type of "statistical" exercise
> > > to prove that Shailesh Gandhi is a "good" Information Commissioner
> > > that the PCRF used for their last RTI Awards, and which was universally
> > > lambasted.
> > >
> > >
> > > FYI
> > >
> > > 1) There are 3 kinds of untruths - lies, damn lies and statistics.
> > >
> > > 2) Statistics are like a bikini top - showing everything yet revealing
> > nothing.
> > >
> > > 3) Statistics are like whores, play with them long enough and they'll do
> > > anything for you.
> > >
> > > 4) All dogs are animals , All cats are animals, Therefore, all dogs are
> cats
> > >
> > > Now let me explain a few things to you
> > >
> > > 1) IC(SG)'s orders are pathetic. They are cyclostyled pieces of garbage of
> >the
> >
> >
> > > fill-in-the-blanks variety. The blanks are filled in by his private interns
> >who
> >
> > >
> > > are are even worse than Arvind Kejriwal's "assessors" if such a thing is
> > > possible.
> > > If you don't believe me, read these 2 latest orders of his on CIC website
> >which
> >
> > >
> > > I picked at random (the 1st two on "recent decsions of CIC today)
> > >
> >
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_001374_8434_M_37419.pdf
> > >
> >
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_001426_8433_M_37418.pdf
> > >
> > > 2) Appellant's / Complainants do not get a fair hearing before him. The main
>
> > > reason for this is that he has already prepared the order before the hearing.
> >
> > >In
> > >
> > > any case what sort of arguments can a person make in the 5 minutes alloted to
> >
> > > them - 2 minutes for appellant, 2 minutes for PIO and 1 minute to print out
> >the
> >
> > >
> > > order. By this logic he should be delivering 100 decisions , ie 2,200 in a
> > >month
> > >
> > > - he is only doing 420 ?? Sorry 419.25 !!!
> > >
> > > 3) Awarding penalty routinely is NOT a good thing. It is like a quack
> > > doctor who gives antiobiotic+steroid for every patient. Only illiterate
> >people
> >
> >
> > > get fooled by such tamasha. Unfortunately we have too many such illiterates
> >in
> >
> >
> > > this world.
> > >
> > > 4) Many of SG's stupid decisions have been stayed / struck down in the High
> > > Court.
> > >
> > > 5) We all know the reasons his office has been digitised, and they have
> >nothing
> >
> > >
> > > to do with efficiency.
> > >
> > > 6) Lastly, I think you are confused - the purpose of RTI Act is not to give
> > > "justice" but to provide information to those who deserve it.
> > >
> > > Sarbajit
> > >
> > > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear friends,
> > > >
> > > > Disposals from IC Shailesh Gandhi. This information may be allergy to some
> > > > of the board members but can"t help it:
> > > >
> > > > From October 2008 to June 2010- 21 months.
> > > > Total disposal 8805.
> > > > Number of cases in which compensation awarded 32.
> > > > Number of penalties imposed 178 amounting to Rs. 33 lakhs.
> > > > One and nly commissioner with Average disposal of 419.25 per month
> > > >
> > > > Diogitalised his whole of office.
> > > >
> > > > We have one person as IC who knows that justice delayed is justice denied.
> > > > Kudos to him. I feel he can be recomanded to next CCIC, again this will be
> > > > allergy to some board members.
> > > >
> > > > Bhaskar Prabhu
> > > > Convenor
> > > > Mahiti Adhikar Manch
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment