Appeal No:159/SIC/2012 Decided on 16/05/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No:159/SIC/2012

Decided on 16/05/2014

Kum. Dr.Kalpana V. Kamat

C/o Vasant M. Kamat

Calderia Arcade. 1^st floor,

Bhute Bhat, Mestawado,

Vasco-da-gama, Goa 403802 ---- Appellant

V/s

1. The Public Information Officer,

Asst. Public Information Officer,

Asst. Director of Education (Adm),

Directorate of Education,

Porvorim- Goa. 403521.

2. The First Appellate Authority,

Director of Education,

Directorate of Education

Porvorim- Goa. 403521. ---- Respondents

O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 09/03/2012

PIO replied : 10/04/2012

First Appeal filed on : 30/07/2012
First Appellate Authority Order in : 29/08/2012

Second Appeal on : 05/09/2012

1) This case has a brief background. On 12/10/2011 the Appellant had sent a prayer to His Excellency, the Governor of Goa, ( This letter is not on our file), stating briefly that she was crossing the age of 40 years and yet unemployed and that she had a teaching experience of some years and hence she should be given a regular job of a teacher. To this the Director of Education had replied on 09/12/2011 that

“she may appear for interview for the post of Teacher Grade- I whenever such posts are advertised. However there is no procedure to select or regularize contractual teacher”.

2) Against this background, the appellant responded to an advertisement No. 12/2011 dated 11/11/2011 issued by GPSC and applied for the post of Teacher Grade I to the GPSC. In the application she claimed to have a teaching experience of Biology. Her age on that date was 40 years 3 months or so.

2/-

-2-

3) This background appears to be so from the RTI application filed by her. Apparently the GPSC did not invite her for interview perhaps on the ground of over age. Thereafter she filed the original RTI application dated

09/03/2012 to the PIO in the office of Director of Education, Porvorim Goa..

She asked several questions out of which it I mention serial No. 1 and 2; by way of example.

1. With reference to my letter dated 12/10/11 which was self explanatory (Regarding job and crossing 40 years), addressed to His Excellency Governor of Goa, Panaji and as per letter dated 09/12/11 addressed to me, from your department stating “you may appear for interviews for the post of Teacher Grade I, whenever the post are advertised for regular post” when my age was 40 years 3 months, Why I was not called for interview of Advt 12/2011 dated 11/11/2011 when your department requested GPSC to fill up 2 teacher Grade I post in Biology when I was only 40 years (2months 5 days) without considering my 11 years of service in teaching field.

2. Is the Education Department victimizing me? If yes for what reasons?

4) Some more of her questions are of similar tone and tenor as question. 2.

5) It is the claim of the PIO Shri Ghadi that a reply was dispatched to her by ordinary post on 10/04/2012. Applicant claims that it did not reach her. She therefore approached Goa State Information Commissioner who vide his order dated 28/06/2012 held that the appellant had not exhausted the remedy of first appeal and accordingly the case was sent to FAA namely the Director of Education for disposal as per the Act. The FAA in his order dated 29/08/2012 directed the PIO to

• Send a copy of information to the Appellant within a period of 7 days from by registered/speed post.
• To go through the RTI application and if any information has not been given, to include said information also alongwith the copy of the earlier information.

3/-

-3-

6) In obeying the above order, dated 29/08/2012, the PIO sent a copy on 03/09/2012 received by the Appellant on 05/09/2012 by registered post as can be seen from his reply before me. However on the same date the Appellant had filed a second appeal. Till date she has not bothered to bring on record that she has received PIO’s reply. This goes against the ethics of judicial proceedings,

and the appellant should understand her duty of disclosing all facts and keep the Commission up to date.

7) I have gone through the record. Since the second appeal has been filed, without going through the reply received from PIO, the second appellant has not been able to draft the second appeal with due cognizance to the information finally supplied by him and received by her free of charge.

Her prayers in the second appeal are

• Information be provided to Appellant on her RTI application dated 09.3.2012 correctly and fully without reserving any information to save any person and as per the Order passed by Respondent No. 2.
• Action be taken on APIO for not providing information within stipulated time period under Life and Liberty Clause.
• Penalty may be imposed on PIO, as per Sec. 20 of RTI Act 2005.
• No fees may be charged.

8) As stated above there is no merit in prayer No. 4 because the information is now received from PIO on 05/09/2012 without charging any fees.

9) The prayer no 2 of the applicant is that

“ Since the RTI applications was made under “Life and Liberty Clause” the

same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request”.

There is no merit in this prayer A person invoking this clause is required to

elaborate how an urgent reply is saving the life and liberty of a person, which remains otherwise threatened. In view of all the time that has elapsed, from date of RTI application till today, it is hard to appreciate how the life and liberty was under threat. The prayer is thus without any supporting reason why it is made so and in any case irrelevant now after so much time. Hence it is fit to be dismissed.

4/-

-4-

10) Coming to 3^rd prayer, it has been noted in the order passed by FAA that on the day of hearing before him, the then PIO Shri Ghadi had come along with the dispatch register of the Directorate from which the FAA has confirmed that a reply to the original application dated 09/03/2012 was in fact dispatched on 10/04/2012. It was sent by ordinary post and perhaps unfortunately has not reached the Applicant. That by itself, does not prove any malafide intention of the PIO. Hence prayer 3 is dismissed.

11) The prayer clause 1 has also been worded without taking cognizance of the reply received from the PIO on 05/09/2012. Hence by itself it can be called premature. Now the applicant has received the reply to her questions from the PIO and has not spoken a word about its lacunae. Hence it must be taken as complete and satisfactory. Thus the prayer 1 also lacks merit.

12) I have gone through the original questions as well as the reply. Questions No 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are factual, and due reply seems to have been given. Questions No. 2,3,4,10 and 11 have been answered as “ do not come under the purview of RTI Act” and this seems to be correct situation For example, question 2 reads

Is the Education Department victimizing me ? If yes for what reasons ?

Such questions are conjectures and do not fall within the perview of sec 2(f).

13) As regards question No.1, the applicant seems to have been correctly directed to make separate application to GPSC in view of the OM No. F.10/2/2008-IR dated 24/09/2010. She had applied to GPSC, not received any call letter, hence the RTI information should have been sought from GPSC.

14) The appellant has to appreciate the fact that section 20(1) or 2 of the RTI Act can be invoked only if the reply given by the PIO is delayed without any explanation, or is significantly away from norms or incomplete or misleading or there is malafide intention. If the Appellant feels that the reply has the above mentioned lacunae then she has to specifically point out the instances of such a lacunae. Presently the appeal memo does not specify any such lacunae. I therefore see no merit in the appeal except to mention that the then PIO should have transferred questions No 1 and 8 to the GPSC, rather than asking the applicant to approach them. I therefore direct that the present PIO shall forthwith transfer the questions No. 1,7,8 and 11 to GPSC if applicant still feels

5/-

-5-

relevance of those questions and makes such an application to him within 1 month of this order. If the questions are transferred, then the GPSC should give a reply within a month, free of charge.

15) I would however not consider it fit to hold the PIO defaulter for any penalty under Section 20. The appellant, who had responded to the Advertisement of GPSC, had first responsibility to address the questions to GPSC and not to Directorate who had simply advised her in response to her petition to Governor. It was not the duty of Director to give any instructions to GPSC to deviate from their norms just because she was overage and yet without employment. Coming to question No. 10 and 12, I find that they do not fall under the purview of RTI Act. If she has been thrown out of some job from some where in an unjust manner then she should seek remedy with the relevant competent authority.

,

16) Some remark however, needs to be made as regards the reply of the director dated 9/12/2011 ( prior to RTI application). The wording used was “she may appear for the interviews for post of Teacher Grade-I whenever the posts are advertised for regular post. Further, you are also informed that there is no procedure to select or regularize lecture basis teacher”. Such wording has potential to create an impression that department has already pre-decided (in view of her application to governor) that whenever there is vacancy, she should be shortlisted and called for interview. A common citizen is not expected to know finer nuances of government working and can be quite carried away by the language of this letter. If there was no amendment made to the existing rules, about overage, then the choice of words in director’s reply can be called “ casual” and it has led the appellant to feel frustrated enough to ask such questions as at s.n. 2,3,4. Such a situation should be avoided as far as possible.

--- O r d e r---

The appeal is partly allowed by giving direction to present PIO and GPSC in the above manner.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji – Goa.