RTI RESPONSE PROVES HOLDING OF POST OF PRINCIPAL BY C.ROY IN A SAME SCHOOL FOR MORE THAN 8 YEARS ILLEGAL

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

Response has been received on the RTI Application of dt.29/8/2014 sent to M.R.Chakraborty ,the Super Corrupt Deputy Commissioner of NVS Patna which was sent to him along with a legal notice served to him under section 80(1) of the CPC for wrongly stating that documents presented by me against C Roy ,Principal,JNV Samastipur is merely charges and complaints,not evidences.But no response has been received in regard to the legal notice served to M.R.Chakraborty.

Question No.4 of my RTI Application is:-

” 4.What is the maximum tenure fixed for a principal for holding post in a same school as per NVS Rule?”

Madan Pal,Assistant Commissioner,NVS Patna, being the Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that PIO is not supposed to clarify your querry/question and in his support he referred to the Judgement of Bombay High Court in the matter of Celsa Pinto VS Goa State Information Commission ,2008 (70) A.I.R. 442 (Bomb).

He deliberately and intentionally inserted the words ” IN YOUR OPINION ” before my question and in this way he wrote in the column of information sought of his letter as ”In your opinion,what is the maximum tenure fixed for a principal for holding post in a same school as per NVS Rule?” and then replied me in the next column of information submitted that PIO is not supposed to clarify your querry/question .
I had not sought opinion,i had asked about rule and seeking information regarding rule is not barred under RTI Act,2005 but by inserting the words ” IN YOUR OPINION ” ,he tried to show my question out of the purview of the RTI Act,2005.

In the legal notice served to the Deputy Commissioner (RTI application was enclosed along with this notice),among other things,question was raised against the holding post of C Roy as a principal in the same school for more than 8 years and accordingly information was sought by the RTI Application.

Now,it is evident that C Roy is holding post of principal in JNV Samastipur for more than 8 years,which is out of NVS Rule,that’s why information is not provided because as per NVS Rule what i have heard that a principal can hold post of principal in a same school for the maximum tenure of 5 years and if such reply would be provided,then C Roy would be caught,that’s why it was refused to provide information.

In response of my three other questions i.e. Q.No. 1,2 & 3,he replied same that PIO is not supposed to clarify your querry/question and in his support he referred to the same Judgement of Bombay High Court in the matter of Celsa Pinto VS Goa State Information Commission ,2008 (70) A.I.R. 442 (Bomb) and in Q.No.1 and 2,opinion has been sought .

“1.In your opinion,What is the difference between a complaint and an evidence?
2.In your opinion,In what circumstances, a complaint may be treated or may not be treated as an evidence?
3.How you decided that there is no evidence in my complaint?”

Now let me examine the section 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005 and the Judgement in the matter of Celsa Pinto VS Goa State Information Commission.

“Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents,memos e-mails,”opinions”, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts,reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;”

Bombay High Court observed in the para 8 of the judgement in the matter of Celsa Pinto VS Goa State Information Commission that “The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.”

After the plain reading of the section 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005,it is evident that seeking opinion is also an information under this act which can be sought as per the provision of the section 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005.So,Q.No.1 and Q.No.2 ( 1.In your opinion,What is the difference between a complaint and an evidence? 2.In your opinion,In what circumstances, a complaint may be treated or may not be treated as an evidence? ) is under the purview of RTI Act,which must have been clarified by the PIO.

After the plain reading of the aforementioned judgement in the matter of Celsa Pinto VS Goa State Information Commission ,it is evident that question asked in the sense of why is only barred if such question amounts to departmental justification.Q.No.3 (How you decided that there is no evidence in my complaint?) has been asked in the sense of how,not why.So,Q.No.3 is also under the purview of RTI Act,which must have been clarified by the PIO.

As the deputy commissioner wrongly stated that documents presented by me against C Roy ,Principal,JNV Samastipur is merely charges and complaints,not evidences,but documents were consisting statements of some victimized students and fraud activities of C Roy which are evidence if any infirminity is not shown in these statements and documents and same thing has been observed In the matter of Krishna Mochi Vs State Of Bihar,2002 CRI. L.J.2645,in which the Supreme Court observed in para 93 of the judgement that evidence is to be weighed and not counted.Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 is a pointer in that regard.For proving witness wrong,it has to be shown by opposite party as to how evidence or statement of a witness suffers from any infirmity.If infirmity is not shown,then evidence or witness is reliable.
Deputy Commissioner could not be able to show infirmities in these papers,so these papers are evidences but he stated that these papers are not evidences,for which a legal notice is served to him.

Now,it is evident that these papers are evidences,so information has not been provided in regard to Q.No.1,2 & 3.

Even Q.No.5 has not been written in the letter of PIO in which i have sought that

“5.You said that action against many of these complaint have been taken.

Please list the complaints against which action has been taken and also list the detail of action taken in regard to these complaints.”

Now it is evident that action against many of these complaints has not been taken but the Deputy Commissioner wrongly said that action against many of these complaints have been taken and that’s why even this question has not been written in the letter of PIO . Apart from complaint of denial of admission of 8 students of class sixth,complaint related to some staffs etc,action against not a single complaint has been taken.

……………………………………….