Information regarding the details of the interview marks secured by the appellant for the post of teacher in a School – CIC admonished the appellant for the intemperate language & misbehavior during hearing; These frivolous applications reflect vengeance
2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought information regarding Butler Memorial Senior Secondary School wherein she was interviewed for primary teacher. She wanted the details of the interview marks secured by her, how many teachers were called for the interview, etc. PIO’s reply/FAA order were not enclosed. The appellant filed 2nd appeal on 9.7.2015. This is a repeated RTI application and repeated 2nd appeal. Earlier, her appeal on the same subject was heard and closed as sufficient information was given.
3. Both the parties made their submissions. At the outset, the advocate representing the Butler Memorial School submitted that their school was not included as party in the 2nd appeal and hence he requested to add the School as one of the respondents along with the respondent authority. He is impleaded as party and heard. The DDE, Ms. Manju Sharma submitted that there were several complaints received against the said school alleging irregularities in the recruitment of teachers. All these complaints were filed and the consolidated file was put up to the Director for taking a decision, as the concerned school is autonomous and a minority school enjoying certain privileges. The appellant’s representative submitted that the information given by the respondent authority is wrong and irrelevant. Having heard the submissions and having perused the record, the Commission directs the respondent school to furnish the information sought by the appellant regarding marks scored by her. The Commission also directs the respondent authority/DDE to inform the appellant action taken on the complaints received against the school regarding the recruitment of teachers. The appeal is disposed of.
4. The Commission records its admonition against the appellant for her frivolous and repeated RTI applications and appeals. The Commission also admonishes her husband, who represented her case before the Commission as her authorized representative, for his intemperate language and misbehavior during hearing. Both husband and wife are harassing the School and the Education Department for not selecting the appellant. These frivolous applications reflect vengeance and no public interest.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Jyoti v. Directorate of Education (ActII), GNCTD in case No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001089