Delhi High Court
Deep Public School Thr. Its ... vs Central Information Commission & ... on 15 September, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
17.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8363/2008
% Date of decision: 15th September, 2009
DEEP PUBLIC SCHOOL THR. ITS CHAIRMAN ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Punam Singh & Ms.
Amrita Prakash, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Baljit Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
1. Deep Public School has filed the present writ petition impugning
order of the Information Commissioner dated 7th November, 2008. By the
said order, Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi has been
directed to collect information from the petitioner and furnish the same to
the information seeker, Ms. Sobha Upadhayay, respondent No. 4 herein.
Ms. Sobha Upadhayay is a teacher in the petitioner school, who is
presently under suspension and is facing enquiry proceedings.
W.P. (C) 8363/2008 Page 1
2. The impugned order dated 7th November, 2008 suffers from two
infirmities. Firstly, it is a non-speaking order and secondly the impugned
order was passed without notice to the third parties, i.e. the petitioner and
Ms. Sangeeta Paul, Principal of the petitioner school about whom certain
information was sought by the respondent No. 4. On these two grounds,
the impugned order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.
Reference in this regard can be made to Sections 11 and 19(4) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for
short). Normally, in such circumstances, the matter is required to be
remanded back to the Information Commissioner for fresh adjudication in
accordance with law. However, in the present case, learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn my attention to the application filed by Ms. Sobha
Upadhyay dated 21st August, 2007, wherein the following information and
details were asked for:-
" 1. Statement of bank salary transaction
records for payment of her salary w.e.f.
01.04.2005 till date and her salary slip may be
supplied to discuss the matter with the Director of
Education of delay in payment of salary every
month.
2. Copy of her leave account, duly signed by
Principal, w.e.f. her date of joining showing credit
and debit of her leave in the leave record
supported by leave applications.
3. Copy of leave account of all staff members
showing leave record, duly signed by the Principal
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to till now showing leave
credited in their leave account for further
W.P. (C) 8363/2008 Page 2
representation.
4. Copy of all documents (Certificate of
Educational Qualifications and Experience
Certificates) duly certified by the Principal,
presented before the Regional Director for
appointment of Mrs. Sangeeta Paul to the post of
Principal to present this case to the Director of
Education."
3. Not satisfied with the information furnished by the Public
Information Officer and the first appellate authority, the respondent No. 4,
Ms. Sobha Upadhyay had filed a second appeal before the Central
Information Commission. The Central Information Commission dismissed
the said appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 27th March,
2008 recording as under:-
"2. The appellant had asked for details of her
own salary and leave account which have been
duly furnished to her. The details of leave of
other colleagues and the records of educational
qualification and experience of the Principal of the
Deep Public School were however denied u/s
8(1)(j) of the Act.
3. In the course of hearing, the appellant
alleged mal practices in the functioning of Deep
Public School, including the issuance of a fake
experience certificate to the Principal. She
pleaded for access to all the certificates submitted
by the Principal, with a view to exposing the
corrupt practices of the School in selection and
promotion of teachers.
Decision:
4. An information seeker has a right to
access the information/documents which are
created and generated by a public authority so as
W.P. (C) 8363/2008 Page 3
to scrutinize the public action. He/she should not
unnecessarily poach into the life of fellow citizens.
In the instant case, denial of personal and official
details of employees u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act is
justified."
4. The Central Information Commission in this order had given a clear
finding that details of salary and leave account have been furnished to the
respondent No. 4, but the petitioner does not have right to get personal
details and official details of other employees of the school in view of bar
under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4 did not
file any writ petition challenging the said order and the said order passed
by the Information Commissioner has become final.
5. After the order dated 27th March, 2008 was passed by the
Information Commissioner, the respondent No. 4 filed a second application
dated 16th April, 2008 with the Public Information Officer, Government of
NCT of Delhi, asking for the following details:-
"3) Information Sought:
DPC record of Mrs. Sangeeta Paul, for selection to
the post of principal of Deep Public School, DII
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, supported by certified
copies of her qualifying work experience
certificate, as submitted to the Department of
Education for approval.
Month wise copies of evidence of salary and PF
Payment to me from August 1996 to March 2005.
My pay slips from August 2006 to April 2008,
covering all payment, deductions and leave
account."
6. On appeal, the first appellate authority directed furnishing of
W.P. (C) 8363/2008 Page 4
complete information to the respondent No. 4. However, respondent No.
4 was not satisfied and filed a second appeal before the Information
Commissioner. The appeal filed before the Information Commissioner has
been allowed by order dated 7th November, 2008. As noted above, the
Information Commissioner has allowed the appeal without giving any
reasons and has merely stated that the exemption claimed under Section
8(1)(j) is only a ploy to deny the information. This does not meet the
requirement of the Section, the Act and principle of administrative law,
i.e., giving of reasons. It is also obvious that the respondent No. 4 had
concealed the fact that she had earlier filed an application asking for
similar and identical information and the same was rejected by the order
dated 27th March, 2008 passed by the Information Commissioner and the
said order was accepted by the respondent No. 4. There was concealment
of facts by the respondent No. 4, which is unfortunate.
7. During the course of hearing of the present petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner has stated that they have already furnished information
in form of minutes of the DPC in which Ms. Sangeeta Paul was selected as
the Principal. She further states that they have already provided
statement of accounts with regard to salary payable to the respondent No.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that they shall furnish
details of salary paid to the respondent No. 4 along with photocopies of
the salary registers/vouchers for payment of salary for the last ten years
W.P. (C) 8363/2008 Page 5
within a period of fifteen days. The statement made by the counsel for
the petitioner is taken on record and the petitioner will be bound by the
said statement. The said details will be furnished and sent to respondent
No. 4 by registered post within a period of fifteen days from today. The
writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 7th November,
2008 is set aside. It is also clarified that penalty proceedings are quashed.
8. The writ petition is disposed of. All pending applications are also
disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) 8363/2008 Page 6
