Below mentioned is a judgment of CIC :
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000965/12846
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000965
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Manoj Kumar
S/o Late Shri Om Prakash
Rio 2 1/21, Rajniwas Marg, Civil Line,
Respondent : Mr. R. P. Yadav
PIO & Dy. Director,
Directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi North
District North, Lucknow Road,
RTI application filed on : 01/02/2011
PIO replied on : 04/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : 03/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 16/03/2011
PIO after First Appeal : 04/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 08/04/2011
Q.No Query Reply of PIO
1. Number of Nursery and Primary admission seats those which are allotted
to different quotas i.e. School quota, Quota for the Poor etc.
sought by the
applicant is for a
School and hence
does not come
under the ambit of
2. What was charged to obtain the School Admission Form and the
Prospectus? How many such were sold?
3. The details of the children selected for admission.
4. The video CD of the entire process of selection of children.
5. Details of the children who are from the weaker sections selected for
Nursery and Prep.
6. Has the school followed the regulation of 25% of students to be from
weaker sections? What percentages of such children have been admitted
into the School?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply given by the PIO within the stipulated time period of 30 days.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information pertains to Queen Marry School which is an aided one avails all the facilities from the
Education Department and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. R. P. Yadav, PIO & Dy. Director; Mr. P. C. Malhotra, PIO Queen Mary’s School,
Tis Hazari, Delhi and Ms. Vinita Shanker, Education Officer (Zone-7) District North.
The Appellant has sought information which pertains to “Helen Jerwood Preparatory School”. The
Respondent has stated that this is a unrecognized, unaided minority institution and no information on
this is held by the Directorate of Education. It appears that the said school is not a public authority as
defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and no information is available with any public authority,
hence information cannot be provided.
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought is about an Institution which is not a public authority and
information regarding it, is not held by the public authority.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
13 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)