Home   Contact Us


Enter College / University Name or City:


  Chandigarh

Colleges
Other Institutes
Home > Chandigarh > Authorities > Chandigarh > DPI Colleges Punjab


DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh, Chandigarh



Contact


DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Address:SCO 66-67, Sector 17 D
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh, India



DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is a State Authority under the control of State Government. DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is also known as Directorate of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab.


DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is situated in Chandigarh of Chandigarh state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Chandigarh comes under Chandigarh Tehsil, Chandigarh District.

Contact Person(s) of the DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is (are): Director Ms Karamjit Kaur Chaudhary since 21.03.2011.

email ID(s) is DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh Chandigarh

Website of DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh is http://www.dpipunjab.org/.


Contact Details of DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh are : Jaswinder Singh, DPI Colleges, Punjab as on 13.03.2012
Tarsem Dhaliwal, DPI Colleges, Punjab as on 06.05.2013
Gurdev Singh Ghuman, DPI Colleges, Punjab as on 5 April 2014




Courses




Profile of DPI Colleges Punjab

The Department
After the partition of the country in 1947, the Punjab Education Department functioned from a camp office set up in Shimlas Metropole Hotel. At that time, the Education Secretary was also Director of Public Instructions. On February 15, 1959, the office was shifted to Chandigarh, the new capital of Punjab. In 1966, when the southern districts of Punjab were constituted as the new State of Haryana, the Department was reorganised with the same staff going to the new state.

The Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab provides education for undergraduate and post-graduate level in various disciplines through more than 350 Colleges functioning under the supervision and the guidance of the Education Ministrer & Principal Secretary Higher Education, Government of the Punjab.

The main aim of the DOHE is not only to enlighten the beneficiaries of the department i.e. the students but also broaden their mental horizon in order to prepare them to cope up with the challenges of the 21st century\'s world. The Department envisions the society as a society habitually capable of living with high ideals; tolerant of others views and aspirations; a society whcih can co-exist with the changing times and assimilate the phenomenon of globalisation of the world; a society which knows the joy of meaningful living; a society keen to protect its younger generation and leave behind a better world. We believe in equal opportunity for all in the quest for education and are striving to impart quality education of a standard recognised at the world community level. We recognise our duty to make quality education affordable for the common man and are striving to create an environment where education would lead to prosperity and improve general standard of living for the masses.

The state has a large network of colleges which has been necessary over a period of time depending on the needs. Punjab has a well developed educational system consisting of:

- 3 Universitities (imparting general higher education namely)
a. Panjab University, Chandigarh.
b. Punjabi Univeristy, Patiala.
c. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.

* - The following Universities are also being setup.
* 1. Central University, Bathinda
* 2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Law, Patiala
* 3. World Class University, Amritsar

- 55 Govt. Colleges (13 new being established in low GER areas of Punjab)
- 136 Govt. aided colleges
- 188 Private collages

Colleges in Punjab have relatively higher enrolment per college than the all India level. The rate of participation of women is relatively better in Punjab as compared to other states. The subject wise distribution of students reveal that, in Punjab majority of students are pursuing studies in the faculty of Arts (63.03 percent) followed by the faculty of Science (12.13 percent) and then the faculty of Commerce (11.26 percent). Under graduate students in Punjab account for a large proportion i.e. 90 percent. A very small proportion of students are enrolled for post-graduation (7.79 percent) and research(0.16 percent).

An analysis of regional distribution of students in higher education among the districts of the state shows Jallandhar as the best educational district with more than 1136 students per hundred thousand population, followed by Ludhiana, Kapurthala and Patiala. Of the total enrolment in professional education, the highest is in Ludhiana, followed by Patiala, Sangrur, Ferozepur, Jallandhar & Amritsar. Besides the students enrolled in the formal system, a good number of students are also enrolled in the distance education programmes being offered by the Universities of Punjab as well as IGNOU and other Universities of India.

Recent Intitiatives taken by the department are:
1. IISER (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali)
2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Law, Patiala
3. P-TOSS Programme
4. Edusat
5. Setting up of 13 new govt. colleges in low GER areas.
6. Launch of GTT pilot project.
7. Initiation of Nasscom certified NAC test

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to DPI Colleges Punjab

65 percent teachers in Sangrur govt colleges are guest faculty (DPI Colleges Punjab)
News: 16th September, 2014
65 percent teachers in Sangrur govt colleges are guest faculty
Teachers defy DPI order on attendance (DPI Colleges Punjab)
News: 4th September, 2014
Teachers defy DPI order on attendance

SC students get admission without paying any fee (News)
75 percent post of teacher vacant in 3 Sangrur govt colleges (News)
Cm nod for vigilance probe on assets of two IAS Officers (News)
Aided colleges battling for survival with no grant from govt (News)
Govt College na hon lai students uch sikhiya toh vanjh (News)
Change in advertisement (Corrigendum)
On first day as DPI, officer shifted to another post (News)
50 crores will use on construction of 45 Govt Colleges (News)
60 percent seats vacant of teachers in aided colleges (News)
Salary of 3800 members stopped for non submition of Graduaty documents (News)
Edusat puts colleges in orbit of knowledge (News)
Readymate cloths sold outside DPI office (News)
Govt granted for open new 7 colleges (News)
DPI ka asli ghar Amritsar ka pagal khana (News)
1000 vacancy vacant (News)
50 crores for construction of Govt Colleges (News)
60 percent seats vacant in Govt Colleges, very bad (News)
Berukhi ke shikar pardesh ke 54 Govt College (News)
40 College running without Students (News)
Teachers salary toh vanjhe (News)
BC employees met DPI (News)
HC noticed to Punjab Govt (News)
5 colleges ke Principal highcourt me talab (News)
Suchna den wich deri te DPI colleges nu harjana (News)
Smt Sandeep Kaur Clerk absent (Public Notice)
Rs 30,000 fined to DPI Colleges (News)
Uniform Cloth Material (Tender)
Aided College teachers ko pension nahi di jayegi (News)
Aided college shikshako ki pension par faisla 3 hafte me (News)
HC, Pvt Colleges liable to pay gratuity (News)
College Students ne kiya pardarshan (News)
PhD Asstt Professor ne lagaya sarkar te vitkarebaji da dosh (News)
Colleges wich Lecturer diya 1873 wicho 993 posts khali (News)
Govt College Lecturers 60 percent seats vacant (News)
15 lecturers elected as Principal (News)
Lecturer vacancies not filled (News)
College Lecturers ki bharti ko manjuri (News)
Vacant college posts will be filled soon (News)
Info panel issues warrant against DPI College (News)
Ger Sarkari Colleges de teachers nu pensions mile (News)
Ucheri Sikhiya layi labdayak nahi kendrikaran da rujhan (News)
College teachers layi vi yogta laggu karan di tayari (News)
Punjab ke niji College staff ko ab milega pension labh (News)
Colleges de hitt wich hai Universites nal jude rehna (News)
Navi Vidyak niti da ger Sarkari Colleges de parbhav (News)
Lecturers nu tarakki Sakari colleges de Principal bane (News)
Dhidho bukhe kive padaunge Guest Faculty Lecturer (News)
Sahayta prapat Colleges me vitay sankat gehraya (News)
Qualified berojgar college Lecturer union di meeting (News)
Karamjeet kaur Choudhary ne DPI Colleges da auhda sambhaleya (News)
Karamjeet Kaur Choudhary ne DPI Colleges da auhda sambhaleya (News)
Faake katt rahe sahayta prapat Colleges de Teachers (News)
Dr Karnel Singh DPE college niyukt (News)
Punjab ke DPI Colleges ko avmanna ka notice jari (News)
Principal Sohan Lal ne nibhai DPI vajjo jimmewari (News)
College Lecturer ki bharti ko manjuri (News)
Principal refused promotion (News)
Principals demand grants, threaten to close colleges (News)

Media coverage of DPI Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Anil Bhatiya versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(90173-97100)
Sh. Anil Bhatiya
No. 1523, Sector 13,
Hisar-125005 (Har). …Appellant

Versus

1. Public Information Officer
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab,
Chandigarh

2. Public Information Officer
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal Secretary Higher Education, Punjab,
Chandigarh …Respondents

AC- 229/11
Order

Present: None for the parties.

In the earlier hearing dated 13.07.2011, it was recorded: -

“After the hearing Sh. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Asstt. (98144-33463) and Sh. Neelesh Sharma, Jr. Asstt. (94172-48755) appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted a letter dated 13.07.2011 addressed to the complainant, wherein it is stated:

“The information sought by Sh. Anil Bhatiya is in the form of questionnaire which is not permissible in terms of Section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005. He has not sought any documents.”

It is pointed out that already two hearings have taken place and no such plea was taken by the respondent. Moreover, relevant section of the RTI Act, 2005 has also not been disclosed. Section 2 is exhaustive and the assertion made by the respondent is quite vague. Hence such a contention at this belated stage is not acceptable.

Therefore, the respondent is directed to provide complete relevant information to the appellant within a fortnight, under intimation to the Commission.”

Today, again no one is present on behalf of the respondent nor has any communication been received. Seeing the casual approach of the respondent, therefore, PIO Ms. Sudeep Bhangu, Deputy Director is hereby issued a show cause notice as to why a penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005 @ Rs. 250/- per day subject to maximum of Rs. 25,000/- be not imposed on her till the information is furnished.

In addition to the written reply, the PIO is also hereby given an opportunity u/s 20(1) proviso thereto for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty on the next date of hearing. She may take note that in case she does not file her written reply and does not avail herself of the opportunity of personal hearing on the date fixed, it will be presumed that she has nothing to say and the Commission shall proceed to take further proceedings against her ex parte.

Respondent is also directed to provide complete relevant information to the appellant within a month’s time, under intimation to the Commission.

Respondent PIO shall also appear personally in the next hearing to explain the matter.

For further proceedings, to come up on 29.11.2011 at 11 A.M. in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 22.09.2011 State Information Commissioner

After the hearing was over, Sh. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Asstt. (98144-33463) came present on behalf of the respondent and stated that since Ms. Bhangu is busy in some other court case, she had not appeared for the hearing. Sh. Harpreet Singh has been advised of the hearing in today’s hearing including the next date of hearing.

As already noted above, for further proceedings, to come up on 29.11.2011 at 11 A.M. in the Chamber.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 22.09.2011 State Information Commissioner

Hira Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



Raj Kumar Mangoch versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(098685-94231)
Sh. Raj Kumar Mangoch
H. No. 189-A,
Garha
Distt. Jalandhar - 144022 …Complainant

Versus

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges)
Punjab, Chandigarh …Respondent

CC- 1112/11
Order

Present:
Complainant Sh. Raj Kumar in person.
For the respondent: Sh. Sukhminder Singh, Sr. Asstt. (99153-08139)

Information has been brought to the court today which has been handed over to the complainant, who going through the same, termed it as incomplete and stated that it was mere repetition of the information provided earlier. He further submitted the following written statement: -

1. “Information supplied vide my application dated 31.01.2011 are not supplied as per RTI questions. It is admitted by the Dy. Director not supplied as per DPI Colleges Punjab that there is delay in processing the case. Vide memo. no. 2/138/-09/ Grant-I dated 17.09.2009, Principal Khalsa College for girls, Baba Sang Desian, Jalandhar was asked to supply the information as desired. Principal vide letter no. BSD/2009-10/420 dated 01.10.2009 supplied the self appraisal performs as desired. Again self appraisal Performa’s were supplied the self appraisal performs as desired. Again self appraisal Performa’s were supplied vide letter no. BSD/2009-10/987 dated 16.01.2010 and 22.09.2010. Therefore there is n delay at college level in sending the reply as required.

2. As per question no 3 of RTI, reply / information is false. I asked daily progress made in her case i.e Mrs. Reeti Mangoch but I asked to contact the college office.

3. In response to question no. 4 same objections are stated. It is not told when the work will be done.

4. Names and designations of the official who were supposed to take action in Mrs. Reeti Mangoch’s case and have not done so are not supplied.

5. In question no. 6, it was asked that “are these officials of guilty of harassing the public?” It is not stated whether they are guilty or not.

6. Who will bear the financial losses occurred due to unwanted delay in processing the case is not informed in response to question no. 7.

7. Whether the department planned to take action against the guilty officials is not stated."
Respondent has presented a letter dated 19.09.2011 which is addressed to the complainant, the relevant part of which reads as under: -

 “Your case could not be disposed of as it was not complete. We have written to the college and also advised them over the telephone. It is pertinent to clarify here that the college authorities have disclosed that the delay is only on account of non-submission of complete papers to them by you.

 As informed by the college, you have not provided them the relevant information / documents and hence they are not in a position to advise the final outcome.

 As soon as the case complete in all respects is received from the College, the final decision shall be conveyed to you.”

It is also observed that the complainant wants to argue the matter which pertains to his personal case and is beyond the scope of information. Hence the same cannot be taken up before the Commission.

With the assurance of the respondent that upon receipt of complete case from the college, the case of the complainant shall be finally decided and disposed of.
With this, the complainant feels satisfied.

Seeing the merits of the case, therefore, it is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 20.09.2011 State Information Commissioner

Puran Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Puran Singh s/o Shri Talrok Singh,
Patti Badda, VPO Kamoka Kalan,
Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
---------Respondent.

CC No. 1374 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER

On the last date of hearing, the complainant was absent and the respondent had submitted that the information was sent vide Principal’s memo No.105/RTI/1973
dated 20.5.2011. The representative of the respondent had also explained the delay on the plea that the information was held by Khalsa College for Women, Sidhwan Khurad and PIO/the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh had to procure this information before furnishing the same. The case was adjourned to 19.9.2011. However, the complainant today is absent without intimation and he has not pointed out any deficiency information furnished to him. In view of this, the case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
September 19, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

HS Khaira versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
PUNJABSCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri H.S.Khaira, #762,Sector 60, Mohali.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officero/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.
CC No. 1872 of 2011
Present:- Shri H.S. Khaira complainant in person.None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. The complainant submits that they have still not received any reply from the respondent-Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

2/ I have perused the six queries of the complainant. Most of these are questions asked regarding verification of service record of retired principals of Government colleges. The respondent is directed to deal with the request of the complainant, keeping in view the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. As a last opportunity to the respondent, the case is adjourned to 20.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M. A copy of this order shall be endorsed to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education, Chandigarh to ensure appropriate action (R.I. Singh)September 9, 2011.
Chief Information Commissioner Punjab CCThe Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education, Chandigarh

Raj Kumar Mangoch versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Raj Kumar Mangoch, House No. 189-A,
Garha, Jalandhar-144022. --- ----------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2337 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Raj Kumar Mangoch complainant in person.
Shri Sukhwinder Singh Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

The respondent requests for an adjournment, which is allowed.
2. To come up on 5.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Hardeep Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Hardeep Singh, 34-Post Office Street,
Doraha Mandi, Distt. Ludhiana-141421. -------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 2335 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Mrs. Suman Lata, Supdt. on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

The complainant is absent without intimation. The respondent submits that information pertaining to Sr. No.3 of his RTI queries dated 3.5.2011 has been furnished. The respondent further submits that complete case of Dr. Hardeep Singh is yet to be received from Government College, Ludhiana. For this reason, the matter is pending. The respondent places on record a written reply. The case is adjourned to 5.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Kuldip Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Kuldip Singh, S/o Late Sh. Raghunath Dass,
Bazar Vakilan, Distt. Hosiharpur-146001.
-------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2375 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.

None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

Issue fresh notice.
2. To come up on 5.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

A S Wadhawan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri A. S. Wadhawan, S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh Wadhawan,
415/9, Mohalla Punj Piplan,
Bahadurpur, Distt. Hosiharpur-146001.
-------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2374 of 2011

Present:-

Shri A.S. Wadhawan complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

The complainant submits that he had sought information in public interest and placed on record unattested photocopy of order dated 16.3.2011 passed by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, Judge in
CM No.3779/2011 in CWP No.3804/2009. From the copy of the order, it appears that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to order that no grant-in-aid shall be released to the petitioner.

2. The complainant further states that inspite of these orders of the Hon’ble High Court grant-in-aid has been released as per the information obtained from DAV College of Education, Hoshiarpur. The complainant wants to confirm this fact by obtaining authentic information from PIO/DPI Colleges, Punjab, Chandigarh which is the competent authority to release the grant-in-aid. The complainant also pleads that so far he has not received any information from the respondent.

3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of due and adequate notice. As a last opportunity, issue fresh notice to the respondent to file his written reply before the next date of hearing which is fixed for 5.10.2011.

4. To come up on 5.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.
(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

A S Wadhawan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri A. S. Wadhawan, S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh Wadhawan,
415/9, Mohalla Punj Piplan,
Bahadurpur, Distt. Hosiharpur-146001. -------------Complainant.

Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

Dr. Anup Kumar,
President, DAV College Managing Committee,
Hoshiarpur -------------Respondent.

CC No. 2357 of 2011

Present:-
Shri A.S. Wadhawan complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant also seeks Dr. Anup Kumar, President, DAV College Managing Committee, Hoshiarpur be impleaded as a party since he is the custodian of the record of the information sought by him. Issue notice to Dr. Anup Kumar, President and the PIO.
2. To come up on 5.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Sital Singh Tiwana versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Sital Singh Tiwana, #1828-C, Tiwana Niwas,
Randhawa Road, Kharar, Distt. Mohali-140301.
-------------Complainant.

Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2289 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Sital Singh Tiwana complainant in person.
Mrs. Santosh Bala, Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Karam Singh Accountant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Shri Karam Singh of Mata Gujri College submits that they have not received original RTI request, which was addressed to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab Chandigarh. The representative of DPI (Colleges), Pun jab, Chandigarh states that numbers of letters were written to the Principal of the College as the information is in their custody. Therefore it is to be supplied by the PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib. The respondent-DPI (College), Punjab, Chandigarh is directed to place on record copies of the letters written by it to the Principal Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which they were directed to furnish the information.

2. The respondent-PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib is hereby directed to furnish the information within 10 days.

3. To come up on 17.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
CC
The Public Information Officer,
Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib.

Naresh Kumar Gupta versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

57781 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Gupta Home,
Near Post Office, Bassi Pathanan,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib-140412.
-------------Complainant.

Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2292 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta complainant in person.
Mrs. Santosh Bala, Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Karam Singh Accountant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER


Shri Karam Singh of Mata Gujri College submits that they have not received original RTI request, which was addressed to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab Chandigarh. The representative of DPI (Colleges), Pun jab, Chandigarh states that numbers of letters were written to the Principal of the College as the information is in their custody. Therefore it is to be supplied by the PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib. The respondent-DPI (College), Punjab, Chandigarh is directed to place on record copies of the letters written by it to the Principal Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which they were directed to furnish the information.

2. The respondent-PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib is hereby directed to furnish the information within 10 days.

3. To come up on 17.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
CC
The Public Information Officer,
Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib.

Naresh Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Gupta Home,
Near Post Office, Bassi Pathanan140412.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO No.67-68, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2114 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta complainant in person.
Mrs. Santosh Bala, Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Karam Singh Accountant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Shri Karam Singh of Mata Gujri College submits that they have not received original RTI request, which was addressed to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab Chandigarh. The representative of DPI (Colleges), Pun jab, Chandigarh states that numbers of letters were written to the Principal of the College as the information is in their custody. Therefore it is to be supplied by the PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib. The respondent-DPI (College), Punjab, Chandigarh is directed to place on record copies of the letters written by it to the Principal Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which they were directed to furnish the information.

2. The respondent-PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib is hereby directed to furnish the information within 10 days.

3. To come up on 17.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
CC
The Public Information Officer,
Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib.

Sital Singh Tiwana versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

S. Sital Singh Tiwana, 1828-C,
Tiwana Niwas, Randhawa Road,
Kharar-140301. -------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO No.67-68, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 2113 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Sital Singh complainant in person.
Mrs. Santosh Bala, Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Karam Singh Accountant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Shri Karam Singh of Mata Gujri College submits that they have not received original RTI request, which was addressed to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab Chandigarh. The representative of DPI (Colleges), Pun jab, Chandigarh states that numbers of letters were written to the Principal of the College as the information is in their custody. Therefore it is to be supplied by the PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib. The respondent-DPI (College), Punjab, Chandigarh is directed to place on record copies of the letters written by it to the Principal Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which they were directed to furnish the information.

2. The respondent-PIO of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib is hereby directed to furnish the information within 10 days.

3. To come up on 17.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

CC

The Public Information Commissioner,
o/oMata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib

K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

DR. K.S. Gill, Advocate, 10, Rose Avenue,
Back Side Officer Colony, Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 431 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.
Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The respondent seeks one adjournment, which is allowed as last opportunity.
2. To come up on 5.10.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
September 8, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Mrs Neelam Goyal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Mrs. Neelam Goyal, House No.1059/1,
Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions,
Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 1743 of 2011

Present:-
Mrs. Neelam Goyal complainant in person.
Shri Jatinder Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER:

The respondent has furnished the information and a copy of it was also handed over to the complainant during the course of hearing. The respondent has explained the delay in the context of long standing litigation between the parties and the matter having gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

2. I have heard the parties on this issue. There was no stay order against furnishing of the information by any superior court. As such the respondent cannot take shelter behind the litigation in the judicial courts. However, the plea of the respondent is that there was no intention or willful delay or denial is accepted, with a caution adherence to time limit in future.

3. With these observations, the case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
August 26, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

hs Khaira versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri H.S.Khaira, #762,
Sector 60, Mohali.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 1872 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

Parties were absent on the last date of hearing without intimation and today again none has appeared. The complainant has neither confirmed nor denied that he has received the information. As a last opportunity to the complainant, the case is adjourned to 9.9.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
August 24, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Charanjeet Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Charanjeet Singh, Charanjeet Hospital
Near Bus Stand,Malerkotla-148023. -------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 1856 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. Charanjeet Singh on behalf of the complainant.
Smt. Suman Lata, Superintendent alongwith Smt. Raksha Devi, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:
The respondent submits that pension case of Mrs. Gurdev Kaur, Principal, remained unprocessed in the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh’s office and now the same is pending for clearance from the Vigilance Department, Punjab. This information has also been furnished in writing by the respondent to the complainant. Complete case of Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Principal for her pensionery benefits was submitted on 28.12.2010 but the department has not taken any action for sanctioning the pension till date.

2. The issue of delay in handling the pension case is a purely administrative matter and it must be addressed by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh and by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education. The facts of this case do point to delay of more than 8 months. The pension case is still under process in the department. As per the Government instructions, the pension cases are to be moved at least six months prior to the retirement of an employee. The facts of the case show gross-negligence in the office of the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. I therefore, direct that a copy of this order should be endorsed to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education, Chandigarh by name.

3. With these observations, the case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
August 19, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

CC
Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, IAS,
the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab,
Department of Higher Education, Chandigarh..

Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Jagat Singh, H.No.B-3/MCH/235,
Near Bahadurpur Chowk,
Opp. Snatan Dharam Sanskrit College,
Hoshiarpur-146001.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 853 of 2011

Present:- None on behalf of the complainant.

Shri Gurcharan Singh, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The complainant has been absent in this case on consecutive hearings on 13.7.2011, then on 29.7.2011 and he is again absent today without any intimation. The plea of the respondent all-along was that the information had been furnished to the complainant who is intentionally dragging the case for harassing the respondent.

2. Continuous absence of the complainant without any intimation despite due and adequate notice only implies that he has nothing to say in this case. The complaint case is closed.


(R.I. Singh)
August 12, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

H S Khaira versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri H.S.Khaira, #762,
Sector 60, Mohali.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.
CC No. 1872 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:
As a last opportunity, the case is adjourned to 24.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
August 10, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Naresh Kumar Gupta versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Gupta Home,
Near Post Office, Bassi Pathanan140412.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO No.67-68, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 2114 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Perusal of the query of the complainant shows that the information pertains to the Principal, Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib, which is said to be an aided private institute. Therefore, issue notice to the PIO/Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib to furnish the requisite information.

2. To come up on 8.9.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
August 5, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
CC

The Public Information Officer o/o the Principal, Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib.Punjab

Sital Singh Tiwana versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

S. Sital Singh Tiwana, 1828-C,
Tiwana Niwas, Randhawa Road, Kharar-140301. -------------Complainant.

Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO No.67-68, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 2113 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Sital Singh Tiwana complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Perusal of the query of the complainant shows that the information pertains to the Principal, Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib, which is said to be an aided private institute. Therefore, issue notice to the PIO/Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib to furnish the requisite information.

2. To come up on 8.9.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
August 5, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
CC

The Public Information Officer o/o the Principal, Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib.

K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

DR. K.S. Gill, Advocate, 10, Rose Avenue,
Back Side Officer Colony, Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 431 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K. S. Gill complainant in person.
Shri Bahadur Singh,Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Jain Parkash, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

On the last date of hearing, the respondent had sought an adjournment, which was allowed. Thereafter some more information has been passed on to the complainant

2. I have heard the parties. The plea of the respondent is that they have furnished the information on all the four issues. On the other hand, the complainant still pleads that there are deficiencies in the information furnished to him. Let the respondent file a point-wise written reply on all the four issues in respect of which the information had been sought, before the next date of hearing. He shall also enclose the copies of the information said to have been furnished to the complainant.

3. To come up on 8.9.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
August 5, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri K.S. Gill, 10, Rose Avenue, Backside Officers’ Colony,
Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 1501 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K. S. Gill complainant in person.
Shri Bahadur Singh,Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Jain Parkash, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The complainant had sought action taken report on his letter dated 13.9.2010, which was a complaint about the legal status of Mrs. Vandana Shukla, Principal of S. D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi. The complaint was addressed to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh, who in turn asked the Principal Government Girls College, Jandiala Guru to conduct an inquiry. A copy of the reply received from the Principal, Government Girls College, Jandiala Guru vide memo No.9358 dated 18.7.2011 has been furnished to the complainant. The respondent submits that so far no further action has been taken on the inquiry report. The complaint case is closed with the direction that as and when a final decision is taken on the inquiry report, the same shall be conveyed to the information-seeker.

(R.I. Singh)
August 5, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Raman Mohinder Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Raman Mohinder Sharma, House No.3462,
Sai Enclave, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.
-------------Appellant
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

FAA- the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondents.
AC No. 520 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Raman Mohinder Sharma complainant in person.
Mrs. Suman Lata, Superintendent alongwith Shri Sachin Sohal, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER:
The information-seeker had addressed a request to the PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh and the same was transferred to all the Principals of the Government Colleges in the State of Punjab. The plea taken by the respondent was that the detailed information in individual cases is available only with the concerned Principles. The appellant, however, submitted that apart from information in individual cases, he had also sought information pertaining to instructions issued by the Government, which in any case will be available at the level of head of the Department namely Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. The respondent has today submitted a written reply received in the Commission vide diary No.13349 dated 4.8.2011 and clarified the position on all the four issues raised by the complainant. In response to the plea of the appellant that the instructions issued by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh/Government are not being followed in letter and word, the respondent submitted that they are willing to give information, in specific cases where benefit was given over and above the Government instructions, if names of individuals concerned and the colleges in which they were posted at that time are given to the respondent. Without these details it would not be possible for the respondent to identify the cases.

3. In view of this submission, the appellant is free to re-approach the PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh giving names of individual lecturers and place of their posting, as per the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. With the above observations, the complaint case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
August 4, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Neelam Goyal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Mrs. Neelam Goyal, House No.1059/1, Sector 39-B,
Chandigarh.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer

o/o the Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 1743 of 2011

Present:-
Mrs. Neelam Goyal complainant in person.
Shri Samrath Sagar, Advocate on behalf of the respondent-BLM Girls College, Nawan Shahar.

ORDER:

The respondent submits that they received a copy of the order dated 7.7.2011 only on 29.7.2011. Therefore, they are unable to respond or file any written reply.

2. In the order dated 7.7.2011, the respondent was directed to furnish the information to the complainant, in case there is no stay order from any court. The Counsel for the respondent confirms that there is no stay from any court and seeks short adjournment on the plea that they had received a copy of the order only few days back. Under the circumstances one adjournment is allowed making it clear that the respondent has already exceeded the statutory limit of 30 days and they would be liable for appropriate penalty/compensation under the relevant provisions of the law. The respondent, therefore, may also file its reply on this issue.

3. To come up on 26.8.2011at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
August 1, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Jagat Singh, H.No.B-3/MCH/235,
Near Bahadurpur Chowk,
Opp. Snatan Dharam Sanskrit College,
Hoshiarpur-146001.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 853 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Shri Jai Inder, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

On the last date of hearing on 13.7.2011, the respondent had submitted that complete information had been furnished. The complainant, however, had sent a written submission, a copy of which was handed over to the respondent.

2. The respondent submits that an additional reply had also been furnished vide memo No.1678/10-Grants-II dated 18.7.2011. The plea of the respondent is that the complainant is unnecessarily dragging the case and the matter may be closed. Since the complainant is absent without intimation, as a last opportunity, the case is adjourned to 12.8.2011, to enable him to confirm that he is satisfied with the clarification given by the respondent.

4. To come up on 12.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
July 29, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Puran Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Puran Singh s/o Shri Talrok Singh,
Patti Badda, VPO Kamoka Kalan,
Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges),

Punjab, Chandigarh. ---------Respondent.

CC No. 1374 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Sukhdev Singh on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh had not appeared on 2.6.2011, 24.6.2011, 15.7.2011 and is again absent today without any intimation though due and adequate notice of the date of hearing was given on each occasion.

2. The complainant states that he has still not received information. In view of this, it is a fit case for imposition of penalty and award of compensation. Issue notice to the PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh as to why penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should not be imposed for non-furnishing of the information within the statutory period of 30 days. The respondent shall also show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the complainant, who had to visit Chandigarh on different dates causing him inconvenience and travel expenditure. The case is adjourned to 25.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M., before which the respondent shall file his submissions failing which exparte decision will be taken on the next date of hearing.

(R.I. Singh)
July 29, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Charanjeet Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Charanjeet Singh, Charanjeet Hospital
Near Bus Stand,Malerkotla-148023.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 1856 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

None has appeared. Issue fresh notice to the parties.

2. To come up on 19.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
July 20, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

HS Khaira versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri H.S.Khaira, #762,
Sector 60, Mohali.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 1872 of 2011

Present:-
Shri H.S. Khaira complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER:

The respondent is absent without intimation. Issue fresh notice to the respondent.

2. To come up on 10.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.
(R.I. Singh)
July 20, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Raman Mohinder Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Raman Mohinder Sharma, House No.3462,
Sai Enclave, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

FAA- the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondents.

AC No. 520 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Ram Mohinder Sharma complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER:

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite due and adequate notice. The appellant submits that no information has been furnished so far though PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh endorsed a copy of the letter written to various Principals of colleges in Punjab by transferring his RTI application dated 24.12.2010 under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The plea of the appellant is that the information, in fact, is held by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh as sanction is accorded at the level of DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. It is averred that DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh has unnecessarily passed on his request to the Principals whereas the information could have been furnished by the DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh itself.

3. Issue fresh notice to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

4. To come up on 4.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
July 19, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab.

Puran Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Puran Singh s/o Shri Talrok Singh,
Patti Badda, VPO Kamoka Kalan,
Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
---------Respondent.

CC No. 1374 of 2011

Present:-
None is present on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Issue fresh notice to the parties.

2. To come up on 29.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.



(R.I. Singh)
July 15, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Anil Bhatiya versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh


STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(90173-97100)
Sh. Anil Bhatiya
No. 1523, Sector 13,
Hisar-125005 (Har).
…Appellant
Versus

1. Public Information Officer
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab,
Chandigarh

2. Public Information Officer
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal Secretary Higher Education, Punjab,
Chandigarh
…Respondents

AC- 229/11
Order

Present:
Complainant: Sh. Anil Bhatia in person.
None for the Respondent.

In this instant case, in the first hearing dated 04.05.2011, Ms. Sagiri Thapar along with Sh. Neelesh, Jr. Asstt. were present on behalf of the respondent and it was recorded: -

“It is pointed out that the queries of the appellant were not answered vide the said letter (of the respondent). The respondent was unable to explain the contents of the said letter.

One more opportunity is granted to the respondent to provide complete and relevant specific and to the point information, within a fortnight under intimation to the Commission.”

In the subsequent hearing on 24.05.2011, no one came present either on behalf of the complainant or the respondent. One more opportunity was granted to the respondent to provide complete and relevant information to the complainant.

Today again, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nor has any communication been received. Complainant also submitted that no information has been provided to him so far.

One last opportunity is granted to the respondent to provide

complete and relevant information to the complainant within a fortnight, under intimation to the Commission.

For further proceedings, to come up on 22.09.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 13.07.2011 State Information Commissioner

After the hearing Sh. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Asstt. (98144-33463) and Sh. Neelesh Sharma, Jr. Asstt. (94172-48755) appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted a letter dated 13.07.2011 addressed to the complainant, wherein it is stated:

“The information sought by Sh. Anil Bhatiya is in the form of questionnaire which is not permissible in terms of Section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005. He has not sought any documents.”

It is pointed out that already two hearings have taken place and no such plea was taken by the respondent. Moreover, relevant section of the RTI Act, 2005 has also not been disclosed. Section 2 is exhaustive and the assertion made by the respondent is quite vague. Hence such a contention at this belated stage is not acceptable.

Therefore, the respondent is directed to provide complete relevant information to the appellant within a fortnight, under intimation to the Commission.

As already noted above, for further proceedings, to come up on 22.09.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 13.07.2011 State Information Commissioner

Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Jagat Singh, H.No.B-3/MCH/235, NearBahadurpur Chowk,
Opp. Snatan Dharam Sanskrit College, Hoshiarpur-146001.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 853 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Shri Jai Inder, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

Order
The respondent submits that complete information has been furnished to the complainant, who, however, has sent a written petition bearing No.308/10
dated 8.6.2011, a copy of which has been handed over to the respondent. The case is adjourned to 29.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
July 13, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Neelam Goyal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Mrs. Neelam Goyal, House No.1059/1, Sector 39-B,
Chandigarh.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 1743 of 2011

Present:-
Mrs. Neelam Goyal complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The complainant submits that she had moved an application dated 15.2.2011 to the PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh, who in turn had forwarded her request to the concerned college-B.L.M. Girls College, Nawanshahr. The plea of the complainant is that the respondent-B.L.M. Girls College is covered under 95% grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government. Therefore, it is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-department. However, from record it appears that vide letter No.282/11 dated 28.4.2011, the college had declined to give information on the plea that the matter is subjudice. Therefore, the information was not furnished to the complainant.

3. I have heard the complainant. She pleads that there is no stay order from any court against furnishing of the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. Since the respondent is absent without intimation, issue a fresh notice/summon to appear before the State Information Commission and to file rejoinder before the next date of hearing which is fixed for 1.8.2011. In case there is no stay order from the court, the respondent shall furnish information to the complainant before the next date of hearing.

5. To come up on 1.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.
(R.I. Singh)
July 7, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Punjab principals authorised to issue learners license

The Punjab government has authorized Principals of all Government Colleges, Polytechnic Colleges, Industrial Training Institutes, Medical Colleges to issue learner license to the students after conducting mandatory test about the knowledge of traffic rules.

An amendment in Motor Vehicle Act 1988, Rule 4, 10, and 11 of Central Motor Vehicle Act has been made in this regard.

This amendment would give a major relief to college going youth, who had to face a lot of harassment to get learner license, to drive two wheelers or four wheelers.

According to the notification, all Principals have been authorized to accept applications on required form along with three passport size photographs, proof of residence as applicable in the rules, proof of age, proof of citizenship and appropriate fee prescribed under Motor Vehicle Act.

While submitting applications for issuing learner license, each applicant would present himself before the Principals of any authorised Government college for preliminary test. After fulfilling all the formalities, the Principals would themselves issue learner license to the students and submit the original records to the DTO office and fee charged to the concerned Treasury.

KS versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



KS Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

DR. K.S. Gill, Advocate, 10, Rose Avenue,
Back Side Officer Colony, Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 431 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.

Shri Bahadur Singh, Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Sunil Kumar, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
The respondent has placed on record, vide Commission’s diary No.7770 dated 9.5.2011, the documents which have been furnished to the complainant who, however, points out deficiencies.
2. The respondent requests for an adjournment, which is allowed. To come up on 5.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.
(R.I. Singh)
June 30, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

KS Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri K.S. Gill, 10, Rose Avenue, Backside Officers’ Colony,
Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 1501 of 2011

Present:- Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.

Shri Bahadur Singh, Senior Assistant alongwith Shri Sunil Kumar, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The respondent submits that the original request for the information was not received in the office of the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. A copy of the same was handed over to the respondent today at the time of hearing of the complaint.

2. The respondent undertakes to furnish the information within 15 days.

3. To come up on 5.8.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
June 30, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Raman mohinder sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Raman Mohinder Sharma, House No.3462,
Sai Enclave, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

FAA- the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. -------------Respondents.

AC No. 520 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant .
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Issue fresh notice to the parties.

2. To come up on 19.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
June 28, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Puran Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Puran Singh s/o Shri Talrok Singh,
Patti Badda, VPO Kamoka Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 1374 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Puran Singh on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The representative appearing on behalf of the complainant points out some deficiencies in the information furnished to him vide No.505/RTI/1973 dated 20.5.2011. His specific plea is that under the column of Sehajdhari Sikhs or Amritdhari Sikhs, correct information has not been given and merely the religion of the candidates has been indicated. Similarly, in the column relating to vacant posts prior to the date of interview in respect of interviews held on 4.9.2010, no vacancy has been indicated while at some places it was indicated that no candidate was selected in the interview.

2. Issue fresh notice for 15.7.2011 to the respondent

3. To come up on 15.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
June 24, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner Punjab

ks gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri K.S. Gill, 10, Rose Avenue, Backside Officers’ Colony,
Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.
CC No. 1501 of 2011

Present:-
Shri K.S. Gill complainant in person.
Shri Baldev Singh, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The respondent submits that the present information-seeker has also filed another case seeking similar information which is fixed for 30.6.2011. In that case, since the respondent-department had pleaded that record is not traceable, the Commission had ordered an inquiry which is now being conducted by Ms. Harleen Kaur Bedi, Assistant Director (Intech).

2. Parties agree that both the cases may be clubbed for hearing. Therefore, this case is adjourned to 30.6.2011.

3. To come up on 30.6.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
June 22, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner Punjab

Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(98727-50080)
Sh. Jagat Singh,
H. No. B-3/MCH/235,
Near Bahadurshah Chowk,
Opp. Sanatan Dharam Sanskrit College,
Hoshiarpur-146001
…Complainant
Versus

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (SE)
Punjab,
Chandigarh.
…Respondent
CC- 671/11
Order

Present:
None for the complainant.
For the respondent: S/Sh. Darshan Singh, Sr. Asstt. (94178-83009) along with Avtar Singh Sr. Asstt. (98556-83544)

In the earlier hearing dated 02.05.2011, it was recorded: -

“Information has been brought to the court. The complainant is not present and the respondent has been directed to send this information to him by registered post. Complainant shall, upon receipt, communicate the discrepancies in the same, if any to the respondent and the Commission.

Respondents also stated that since the information had to be procured from various Distt. Education Officers in the State, the delay has occurred.”

Complainant is not present today nor has any communication been received from him.

Seeing the merits of the case, it is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 21.06.2011 State Information Commissioner

Hira Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(94175-34823)
Sh. Hira Singh
VPO Mukandpur,
Distt. Nawanshahr.
…Complainant
Versus

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges)
Punjab, Chandigarh …Respondent

CC- 1171/11
Order

Present:
Complainant Sh. Hira Singh in person.
None for the respondent.

Vide application dated 05.03.2010, complainant had sought the following information: -

“1. What is the sanctioned strength of lecturers in colleges in the rural areas namely Govt. College Afghana, Govt. College Ajnala and Govt. College Sathiala in all the subjects being taught (Please provide me break up college-wise)?

2. How many lecturers in the said colleges, on permanent / regular posts are working since January 1, 2010?”

It has been submitted that information on point no. 1 was provided vide letter dated 26.03.2010 and the second part was promised to be supplied separately. Sh. Hira Singh states that even a reminder was sent on 24.01.2011 but no information was provided.

The instant complaint has been filed with the Commission on 18.04.2011.

Complainant submits that no information has been received by him so far.

Respondent is not present today nor has any communication been received from him.

One more opportunity is granted to the respondent to provide complete and relevant information to the complainant as per her original application dated 05.03.2010, under intimation to the Commission.

Complainant shall inform the Commission if the information, when provided, is to his satisfaction.

For further proceedings, to come up on 28.07.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 09.06.2011 State Information Commissioner

Raj Kumar Mangoch versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(098685-94231)
Sh. Raj Kumar Mangoch
H. No. 189-A,
Garha
Distt. Jalandhar - 144022
…Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges)
Punjab, Chandigarh …Respondent

CC- 1112/11
Order

Present:
Complainant Sh. Raj Kumar Mangoch in person.
None for the respondent.

Vide application dated 31.01.2011, the complainant sought information pursuant to resolution no. 17 dated 20.11.2008 passed by the management for placing his wife Mrs. Reeti Mangoch in selection grade w.e.f. March 13, 2008.

The present complaint has been field with the Commission on 13.04.2011 as no information was provided.

Complainant submits that an unstamped envelope (apparently put someone by hand in the letter box) has been delivered which contains a letter signed by Sudeep Bhangu, Deputy Director. Below the signature, date mentioned is ’30.03.2011’ wherein it is stated:

“You have sought answers to so many questions which is not provided for, under the RTI Act, 2005. However, the official concerned can inspect her Pay Fixation file in this office on 8th April at 3.00 p.m.”

None is present on behalf of the respondent nor has any communication been received. Even a copy of the response said to be delivered to the complainant has also not been produced on record. Seeing the poor and negligent response of the respondent, therefore, PIO, office of Director Public Instruction (Colleges) is hereby issued a show cause notice as to why a penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005 @ Rs. 250/- per day subject to maximum of Rs. 25,000/- be not imposed on him till the information is furnished.

In addition to the written reply, the PIO is also hereby given an opportunity u/s 20(1) proviso thereto for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty on the next date of hearing. He may take note that in case he does not file his written reply and does not avail himself of the opportunity of personal hearing on the date fixed, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say and the Commission shall proceed to take further proceedings against him ex parte.

Respondent is also directed to provide complete relevant information to the complainant within a fortnight, under intimation to the Commission.

For further proceedings, to come up on 27.07.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 07.06.2011 State Information Commissioner

Puran Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Puran Singh s/o Shri Talrok Singh,
Patti Badda, VPO Kamoka Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

-------------Respondent.
CC No. 1374 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Issue fresh notice to the parties for 24.6.2011.

2. To come up on 24.6.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
June 2, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner Punjab

Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Jagat Singh, H.No.B-3/MCH/235, NearBahadurpur Chowk,
Opp. Snatan Dharam Sanskrit College, HOshiarpur-146001. -------------Complainant.

Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 853 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Jagat Singh complainant in person.
Shri Jai Inder, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Shri Jai Inder Singh appearing for the respondent submits that voluminous information on 15 issues had been asked. It required to be collected from different branches and also from the field.

2. The complainant submits that Principal, Government College, Hoshiarpur, in any case, has furnished information to the complainant vide No.232 dated 5.2.2011. The information-seeker, however, pleads that the information is incomplete and therefore, PIO/Government College, Hoshiarpur should also be impleaded as a party.

3. Notice be issued to the PIO/Government College, Hoshiarpur. The PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh shall also furnish the remaining information to the complainant before the next date of hearing which is fixed for 1.7.2011.

4. To come up on 1.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
May 30, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Anil Bhatiya versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(90173-97100)
Sh. Anil Bhatiya
No. 1523, Sector 13,
Hisar-125005 (Har).
…Appellant
Versus

1. Public Information Officer
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab,
Chandigarh
2. Public Information Officer
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal Secretary Higher Education, Punjab,
Chandigarh …Respondents

AC- 229/11
Order

Present: None for the parties.

In the earlier hearing dated 04.05.2011, it was recorded:

”Sh. Bhatiya submits that the communication dated 22.11.2010 from the respondent was altogether irrelevant. The said letter reads:

‘In response to your letter dated 02.10.2010 seeking information under the RTI Act, a copy of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of employees) Act, 1974 and rules pertaining to grants-in-aid to the private colleges is sent herewith.’

It is pointed out that the queries of the appellant were not answered vide the said letter. The respondent was unable to explain the contents of the said letter.

One more opportunity is granted to the respondent to provide complete and relevant specific and to the point information, within a fortnight under intimation to the Commission.”

Complainant is not present today nor has any communication been received.

One more opportunity is granted to the respondent to provide complete and relevant information to the complainant under intimation to the Commission.

Complainant shall also inform the Commission if the information, when provided, is to his satisfaction.

For further proceedings, to come up on 13.07.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 24.05.2011 State Information Commissioner

Parveen Garg versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
PUNJABSCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Dr. K.S. Gill, #10, Rose Avenue,Backside Officers Colony, Ferozepur 152002.

-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officero/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 363 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.Shri Bahadur Singh, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Both the parties state before me that information was furnished by the respondent and that the complainant Dr. K.S. Gill is fully satisfied with the same. Dr. Gill further states that he has no compliant against the respondent.
2. In view of this, the complaint case is closed.
(R.I. Singh)May 10, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
PUNJABSCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
DR. K.S. Gill, Advocate, 10, Rose Avenue,Back Side Officer Colony, Ferozepur City-152002.

-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officero/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.
CC No. 431 of 2011
Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.Shri Bahadur Singh, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
The complainant states that he had moved an application to PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh on 8.12.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and instead of furnishing the information, his request was forwarded to S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi. His plea is that the information is in the custody of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh and transfer of his RTI request was a clear violation of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The complainant further states that now the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh has appeared as a respondent before the State Information Commission. They are still not forwarding him the requisite information stating that the relevant file is not traceable.

2. The representative of the respondent also states that the relevant file is not traceable. The respondent is directed to conduct an inquiry regarding the missing of file, fix responsibility and take appropriate action against those responsible for the same. The respondent is further directed to make a fresh earnest effort to trace out the file and give the information.

3. To come up on 30.6.2011 at 10.30 A.M.
(R.I. Singh)May 10, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Anil Bhatiya versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



Jagat Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Jagat Singh, H.No.B-3/MCH/235, NearBahadurpur Chowk,
Opp. Snatan Dharam Sanskrit College, HOshiarpur-146001. -------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 853 of 2011

Present:-
Shri Jagat Singh complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Issue fresh notice.

2. To come up on 30.5.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
April 26, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

KS Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Dr. K.S. Gill, #10, Rose Avenue,
Backside Officers Colony, Ferozepur 152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 363 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.

Shri Sunil Kumar, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent alongwith Shri Jain Parkash, Superintendent and Smt. Rita Sanghar, Vice Principal of S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi.

ORDER

This case is adjourned to 10.5.2011 on the request of the parties.

2. To come up on 10.5.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
April 19, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

KS Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

DR. K.S. Gill, Advocate, 10, Rose Avenue,
Back Side Officer Colony, Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

-------------Respondent.
CC No. 431 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.
Shri Sunil Kumar, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent alongwith Shri Jain Parkash, Superintendent and Smt. Rita Sanghar, Vice Principal of S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi.

ORDER
The parties request for an adjournment, which is allowed.

2. To come up on 10.5.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
April 19, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

ks gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Dr. K.S.Gill, #10, Rose AVenua,
Backside Officers Colony, Ferozepur 152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 363 of 2011

Present:-
DR. K.S. Gill complainant in person.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

None has appeared on behalf of the PIO/Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh though a notice was issued on 1.3.2011. Issue a fresh notice for 19.4.2011. It is made clear that in case no reply is filed by the PIO/Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh before that date or if he fails to appear on the said date, exparte decision may be taken.

2. To come up on 19.4.2011 at 10.30 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
March 21, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

CC

The PIO/Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh

Jarnail Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



AS Wadhawan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri A.S.Wadhawan, 415/9, Mohalla Punj Piplan,
Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur-146001.
-------------Appellant
Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

FAA-the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
--------------Respondents.

AC No.1151 of 2010

Present:-
Shri A.S.Wadhawan, appellant in person.
Shri Jai Inder, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.
ORDER
The appellant had moved an application dated 10.9.2010 to the PIO/Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh seeking information on four issues. Having failed to get the information, he filed second appeal in the State Information Commission. Notice was issued to the respondent who has today confirmed that the information was furnished to the appellant vide memo No.16/80-10/Grant-II (5) dated 16.2.2011. A copy of the same has already been placed on the record of the case file. A perusal of this letter shows that the respondent has furnished to the information-seeker, a copy of the Government instructions bearing memo No.2563-5 Edu-1/79/4316 dated 21.3.1979 alongwith terms and conditions of financial grant to be given to the private colleges on the basis 95% of the deficit. The plea of the respondent is that except query No.3 which is in the nature of a comment, Information on other three issues raised by the information-seeker has been duly furnished. In particular he draws attention to clause 18 and 20 of the letter dated 21.3.1979 which contain the terms and conditions of financial grant to the private colleges receiving 95% of deficit and pleads that all the information sought by Appellant has been given.

2. A perusal of the information furnished to the information-seeker shows that the respondent has not specifically supplied a copy of any instructions under which cheque of grant-in-aid is to be issued in favour of principal of the concerned institute/colleges, instead of the Managing Committee. The plea of the respondent is that there are no such instructions, apart from the ones already furnished to the information-seeker. Cheques are being issued in favour of the principal relying on the instructions at Sr. No. 18 and 20 of the Terms and Conditions of Financial Grant to Private Colleges on the basis of 95% deficit as contained in the letter dated 21.3.1979.

3. The respondent has confirmed in writing that there are no other instructions relating to issuance of cheque of grant in aid in favour of the principals of the aided colleges, except those contained in the letter dated 21.3.1979.

4. The appellant is satisfied, after respondent has confirmed this position. Accordingly the appeal is closed.


(R.I. Singh)
March 14, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

KS Gill Advocate versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

DR. K.S. Gill, Advocate, 10, Rose Avenue,
Back Side Officer Colony, Ferozepur City-152002.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
-------------Respondent.

CC No. 431 of 2011

Present:-
Dr. K.S. Gill complainant in person.
Shri Sunil Kumar, Superintendent on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

The representative of the respondent states that the information is held by S.D.Colleges for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi. Therefore, the request for information of the present complainant was transferred under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Principal, S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi vide DPI’s memo NO.20/87-10-Grant-1/ dated 23.12.2010 and a copy of this was endorsed to the information-seeker.

2. Issue a fresh notice to the PIO/S. D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi.

3. To come up on 19.4.2011 at 10.30 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
March 14, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
CC

PIO o/o the S. D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi.

RUPINDER BHALLA Vs DPI (COLLEGES) PUNJAB and ORS CWP 4394 of 2011

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Date of Decision: 11.03.2011

Rupinder Bhalla . . . . Petitioner
VS.
DPI (Colleges), Punjab and Ors. . . . . Respondents


CORAM :
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Present:
Mr. ID Singla, Advocate for the petitioner

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). Notice of motion to respondent No.1 only at this stage.

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf on its behalf. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondent No.1 to file its reply/affidavit.

(2). The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Commerce in the SL Bawa DAV College, Batala, District Gurdaspur. It is averred that the petitioner possesses the prescribed academic qualification of M.Com, M.Phil and has also qualified UGC test and is fully eligible for appointment on regular basis. The petitioner has averred that she is being repeatedly appointed on contract basis for every academic session since 12.08.1991 onwards.

(3). It is averred that the post against which the petitioner has been appointed time and again is duly sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. However, in order to
exploit the petitioner who is not in a position to bargain with the mighty management and also to deprive her of the status of a regular Lecturer by
adopting the policy of hire and fire policy that the Management is not inclined to fill up the post on regular basis.

(4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that if the averments made by the petitioner were to be true that despite availability
of the regular post of Lecturer in Commerce under the Grant-in-Aid scheme, she is being deprived of the salary and other benefits admissible to a regularlyappointed
Lecturer, it might warrant interference of the DPI (Colleges). However, instead of expressing any final views at this stage, I deem it appropriate to ispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab to hold a fact-finding enquiry as to why the post of Lecturer in Commerce, if sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid scheme, has not been/is not being filled up by the College on regular basis and as to why the petitioner is being appointed every time on for one academic session only.

(5). If it is found that the Management has not acted in a fair and just manner, the DPI (Colleges), Punjab shall take appropriate steps to see that the post is filled up
on regular basis under his direct supervision, failing which an action to exclude the subject post from Grant-in-Aid Scheme can be initiated in accordance with law.

(6). Let a dasti copy of this order be handed over to Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab for information and necessary action.

(7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.

(S u r y a K a n t)
Judge

K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



NAVINDER KUMAR Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER C.W.P 3189 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

C.W.P 3189 of 2011

Date of decision: 22.2.2011.

Navinder Kumar .............Petitioner
v
State of Punjab and another ..............Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:-
Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Jaswant Singh,J
By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of Physical Training Instructor (for short “PTI”) for having higher qualifications of Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed) and Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed).

It is stated that the petitioner has passed his B.P.E three
years course in the Summer 2004 (P.2) and completed his one year degree course of Bachelor of Physical Education on 5.12.2006 (Winter) (P.3) from the Nagpur University and thereafter did M.P.Ed in Summer 2008 (P.4). Department of Education, Government of Punjab vide Advertisement No.1- October.2006 published in The Tribune October 21, 2006” (P.8) advertised different posts of School Teachers including 175 posts of PTI.

Considering himself being fully qualified, the petitioner applied for the post of PTI in pursuance of the corrigendum on 24.7.2007, however, it is alleged that he has been ignored by the respondents only on the ground that he is not having the qualification of Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed).

The Basic as well as Profession Qualifications for the post of PTI are reproduced as under:

(i) Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent; and

(ii) Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed) of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent.

Learned counsel argues that in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Full bench dated 5.2.2010 (P.13) titled as Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another judgment by learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2010 (P.14), case of the petitioner is squarely covered and the writ petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms.

Admittedly, the advertisement was issued on 21.10.2006
and the respondents published a notice for the scrutiny of original documents of the candidates and it is claimed by the petitioner that he attended the scrutiny in pursuance of the said notice as mentioned in para 12 of the writ petition. It is alleged that his documents were
checked by the respondents, however, he was not considered only on the ground that he was having higher qualification of B.P.Ed and not possessing the Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed). Meaning thereby, the petitioner was aggrieved against the action of the respondents at the time of scrutiny in the year 2007 whereas he filed the present writ petition only on 21.2.2011 i.e after a period of four years. Although for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a mandamus, there is no prescribed period of limitation yet in the matter of selection-appointment, the writ petitioner is always expected to be vigilant while approaching the High Court within a reasonable period. Even the limitation for filing a civil suit for declaration is three years. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground.

So far as the judgment of Full Bench (P.13) in Manjit Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not helpful to the petitioner as in that case, a reference was made on a question “whether a candidate possessing higher qualification than the one prescribed and advertised for appointment to the posts is eligible for such selection-appointment?” and vide order dated 5.2.2010, the reference was answered by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the affirmative and the writ petitions were ordered to be placed before the learned Single Judge for
decision on merits. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.7.2010 (P.14), the writ petition bearing CWP No.451 of 2008 in Manjit Singh's case (supra) was allowed and a speaking order dated 13.9.2007 issued by the respondents was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the candidate of the petitioner (s) in the light of the law laid down by this Court. It is necessary to mention here that in Manjit Singh's case (supra), initially the petitioner filed CWP No.2868 of 2007
which was disposed of vide order dated 18.7.2007 by this Court directing the respondent No.2 to consider the writ petition as a representation and take a final decision and in pursuance of the same, the speaking order dated 13.9.2007 (P.12) was passed, which was subsequently challenged by filing CWP No.451 of 2008 praying for a writ of certiorari ; but in the present case the petitioner has woken up from the slumber after a period of four years and, therefore, he cannot be equated with Manjit Singh's case (supra). Needless to say that in view of the declaration of law laid down by Hon'ble Full Bench (P.13) ,
the petitioner, if so advised, may apply in future in case any vacancy of PTI is-are advertised by the respondents.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed here-in-above, present writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above.

(Jaswant Singh)
Judge

SUBASH CHANDER AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS C.W.P 3204 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

C.W.P 3204 of 2011

Date of decision: 22.2.2011.

Subash Chander and others .............Petitioners
v
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:-
Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners.

Jaswant Singh,J
By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to hold counselling (Phase-II) of the petitioners for the post of Teaching Fellows.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book.

Learned counsel argues that in view of the instruction dated 25.8.2010 (P.16) issued by respondent No.1, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bound to conduct the counselling of the petitioners for the post of Teaching Fellows still no action is being taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 hence the petitioners are entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.

It is pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner No.1 has
passed his B.Ed Examination from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in June 1995 (P.1) and completed his M.A (Hindi) from Punjabi University, Patiala in October 1999 (P.2), petitioner No.2- Kamaldeep Singh passed his B.Ed Examination from Punjabi University, Patiala on 17.8.2007 (P.5), petitioner No.3 passed his B.Ed on 17.1.1992 from Panjab University, Chandigarh (P.8) whereas petitioner No.4 passed his M.A History from the Panjab University on 24.8.2000 (P.12) and completed his B.Ed from Punjabi University, Patiala on 20.8.2001 (P.13).

Department of School Education (Primary Wing) Government of Punjab vide Advertisement No.2- September.2007 published on 5.9.2007 (P.15) advertised different posts of Teaching Fellows for a period of three and a half years on a consolidated pay of Rs.4550-- against JBT-ETT posts and last date of submission was fixed on or before 30.9.2007. It was further clarified that being a district cadre, candidates could apply only for one district of their choice and total number of posts were 9998 including 1291 posts earmarked for district Ludhiana. Considering themselves being fully qualified in response thereto, petitioners applied for the post of Teaching Fellows and submitted their applications to respondent No.3.

Basic as well as professional qualifications for the post
aforesaid are reproduced below:

(i) 10+2 any State recognized Education Board-recognized University.

(ii) Elementary Teacher Training two year's course of Punjab State or from any other State or Union Territory declared equivalent and recognized by NCTE-Punjab Government.

Details of the registration numbers and marks obtained by the petitioners as per the Merit List of District Ludhiana are as follows:

Petitioner Registration Marks
No. No. obtained
No.1 2204 56.173
No.2 2709 56.528
No.3 7354 64.096
No.4 4725 64.122

It is necessary to mention here that all the petitioners
belong to General Category. It is an admitted fact that the respondents called the candidates to attend first counselling on 15.3.2008 but as per the merit list depicted on the website the petitioners could not fall in the list as they were below the percentage of cut off marks. Then, the second counselling was held on 10.7.2009 but admittedly the petitioners did not participate in the said counselling for the reasons best known to them. As admitted in para 21 of the writ petition, the third counselling was announced on 14.5.2010 and the petitioners allegedly wanted to participate in the same but their candidatures were not considered on the ground that their names did not figure in the list as they did not attend the second counselling.

Undisputedly, after the issuance of instructions dated 25.8.2010 (P.16), petitioners have not approached the respondents rather straightway rushed to this Court by way of the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus, which is not at all permissible. Even, as per the case of the petitioners themselves, the representations dated 22.6.2010 (P.17) and 21.6.2010 (P.18) were made by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 respectively prior to the aforesaid instructions dated 25.8.2010 (P.16), which are of no consequences.

Moreover, this Court cannot assume the jurisdiction of a Departmental Selection Committee. This Court is also not aware as to what is the status of selection process resulting from the advertisement dated 5.9.2005 (P.15) as on today and whether the official respondents are still continuing with the selection process or not. The proper way for the petitioners would have been to approach the respondents for their grievance instead of filing the instant writ petition.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case
specially when the petitioners knowingly and deliberately did not participate in the second counselling held on 10.7.2009, they have no cause to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and as such the present writ petition is mis-conceived being pre mature.

Dismissed.

(Jaswant Singh)
Judge

Raj Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Raj Kumar, #284-D, Street No.6,
Jujhar Nagar, Patiala. -------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. -------------Respondent.

CC No. 298 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Ms. Suman Lata, Superintendent on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

The respondent submits that information was duly furnished to the complainant free of cost. This submission has been made in writing vide memo No.6/40-2003/NCC(3) dated 17.2.2011 to the Commission.

2. The complainant is absent without intimation. In view of the fact that the information stands furnished to him free of cost and the fact that he has not contested this, the complaint case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
February 21, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

AS Wadhawan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri A.S.Wadhawan, 415/9, Mohalla Punj Piplan,
Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur-146001. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

FAA-the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. ----------------- Respondents.

AC No.1151 of 2010

Present:- None on behalf of the appellant.
None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

Issue fresh notice to the parties.

2. To come up on 14.3.2011 at 11.00 A.M.

(R.I. Singh)
February 21, 2011 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

A S Wadhawan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri A.S.Wadhawan, 415/9, Mohalla Punj Piplan,
Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur-146001. -------------Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

FAA-the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. ----------------- Respondents.

AC No.1151 of 2010

Present:- None on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Jai Inder, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

The respondent submits that the queries of the information-seeker relate not only to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh but also to the Director Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab and also to colleges located in different parts of the state. The plea of the respondent is that the information will need to be collected, which he is willing to do, before it can be furnished.

2. The appellant is absent without intimation.

3. To come up on 21.2.2011 at 11.00 A.M.


(R.I. Singh)
January 20, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Kapoor versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Kapoor,
16-GF-HIG Flats, B-Block,
Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. Appellant
Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o (i) Principal, Khalsa College of Education,
Amritsar.
(ii) Director, Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Sector 17B, Chandigarh. Respondent

AC No. 1144 /2010

Present: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kapoor, appellant, in person.
Ms. Anupam Sharma, Advocate and Shri Gurcharan Singh, Senior Assistant, on behalf of respondent.
ORDER

1. Heard both the parties.

2. The requisite information has been supplied by the PIO- Principal, Khalsa College of Education, Amritsar vide letter No. KCE- 1227, dated 14.12.2010. However, if the appellant, Shri Rakesh Kumar Kapoor, wants to have some more information, he should file a new application with the PIO.

3. Since the requisite information stands supplied, the case is disposed of.

4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Surinder Singh
Dated:20-01-2011 State Information Commissioner

CC: Director, Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.

Jarnail Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh



Jaswant Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Jaswant Singh,
S/O Sh. Hardev Singh,
Vill. Gurditpura,
P.O. Manakpur,
Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction ( Colleges),
Punjab, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. …….Respondent

CC No. 3081 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Mr. Jaswant Singh, Complainant , in person.
Ms Kamaljit, Sr. Assistant, for the Respondent.
____

The RTI request, dated 01.09.2009, is regarding seeking information about availability of any kind of scholarship to the scheduled castes candidates in colleges affiliated to the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. On not getting any information, a complaint was filed with the Commission on 11.10.2010.

2. The Respondent has submitted a letter, dated 19.11.2010, addressed to the Commission, wherein, it is stated that the information pertains to the Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar. The letter also states that the said RTI request was received in the office of DPI (Colleges) but the relevant file is not traceable. The Respondent has expressed regrets and apologized for the same.

3. The Respondent, in response to a question, also avers that no communication was sent to the Complainant. This is a serious lapse on the part of the PIO O/O DPI(Colleges), who should have transferred the application to the other public authority i.e. PTU, Jalandhar, which, the PIO has failed to do. This is against the letter and spirit of the Right to Information Act.

4 A copy of this order be sent (by name) to the D.P.I.(Colleges) who may take cognizance of the matter so that there is no harassment to the information-seekers in future.

5. A copy of the Respondent’s letter, dated 19.11.2010, is also handed over to the Complainant who may file a fresh application with the P.T.U. to seek the requisite information, if he so desires.

With this, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, November 22, 2010. State Information Commissioner.
cc: Mrs. Jasmeet Kaur,
Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

K S Bedi versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

K. S. Bedi,
House No. 260, Charan Bagh,
Patiala 147001. …Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 2843 of 2010
ORDER

Present::
None for the Complainant.
Representative, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Assistant, for the Respondent.
. ----

The RTI request is, dated 08.05.2010. On not getting any response, a complaint was filed with the Commission on 13.09.2010.

2. The information sought is on 05 points which are in the nature of questions and pertain to the outcome of a decision in the Civil Writ Petition of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Respondent sent a response to the Complainant on 18.10.2010, a copy of which is available in the case file.

The Complainant is absent without intimation.
Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, October 29 , 2010. State Information Commissioner.

SPANAND Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Civil Writ Petition No.603 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

S.P.Anand .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

CORAM : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present :
Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr.R.N.Raina, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner served as a Lecturer-in-English and retired as Officiating Principal w.e.f. 31.1.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation from respondent No.4-College run by respondent No.3- Management. Since his retiral dues are yet to be paid, that he has approached this Court. The Management as well as the State Government have filed their respective counter-affidavits fastening the responsibility to pay the retiral dues against each other. The question as to who is liable to pay the retiral dues to a Teacher appointed under the grant-in-aid Scheme, has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in (R.S.Sidhu and others versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 13.12.2005 (Annexure P-6). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Management of the College to release all the retiral dues to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 7% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The Management of the College shall thereafter be entitled to seek re-imbursement of the dues paid to the petitioner from the Government of Punjab under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme. The State Government is directed to consider and release the due amount to the Management in accordance with the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such claim. Ordered accordingly. Dasti.

(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE



Jaskaran Singh Sidhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Jaskaran Singh Sidhu,
Ward No. 16,
Mohalla Radharka,
Mansa 151505. ….. Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
……Respondent
CC No. 2817 of 2010

ORDER

Present :
None for the Complainant.
Mr. Achhar Singh, Sr. Assistant, for the Respondent.
____

The RTI request, dated 03.08.2010, for information is on 02 points regarding outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 20439 of 10.05.2010. On not getting any response, he filed a complaint with the Commission which is registered against diary No.17768 of 14.09.2010.

2. The Respondent submits a copy of the appropriate response sent to the Complainant. The same is taken on record. Nothing contrary has been heard from the Complainant.

Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, October 18, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Rajinder Singh Dogra versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Rajinder Singh Dogra,
S/o Sh. Brij Lal,
R/o House No. 175, Mohalla Takki,
Committee Bazar,
Hoshiarpur. ..…Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
……Respondent

CC No. 2366 of 2010

ORDER

Present:
Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Complainant, in person.
Representative, Mr. Amarjot Singh, Sr. Assistant, for the Respondent.
. ----

The RTI request, dated 08.05.2010, addressed to PIO, DPI(Colleges), Punjab, is regarding seeking detailed information regarding utilization of Rs. 1,42,13,915/- by the S.D. College, Hoshiarpur, from November, 2009 till date. The complaint with the Commission is dated 18.07.2010.

2. The requisite information was sent to the Complainant on 17.06.2010 which the Complainant acknowledges having been received

Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, August 20, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Raj Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Raj Kumar, #284-D, St. No.06, Jujhar Nagar,
Patiala.
_______ Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. _______ Respondent.

CC No. 2159 of 2010

Present: -
Shri Raj Kumar complainant in person.

None on behalf of the respondent-department

ORDER

The complainant confirms that he has received the information. In view of this, the complaint case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
August 2, 2010 Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Appellant
(ii) Smt. Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director (Colleges),Pb on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard
2. Respondent states that payment of compensation amounting Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) has been paid. Since, the order of the Commission has been compiled with. No further action is required.

3. The case is disposed of and closed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 15th July, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Ashutosh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Ashutosh,
House No. 3179,
Sector 38-D, Chandigarh. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, Punjab,
Chandigarh. ….…Respondents

AC No. 416 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Mr. Narottam Sharma, for the Repsondent.
Mr. R. T. Saini, Superintendent and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----

The Appellant is represented by Mr. Narottam Sharma and has made a written submission, dated 02.07.2010, stating that he has received the requisite information and he is satisfied. The same is taken on record. The Respondent also submits a copy of the information sent to the Appellant on 24.06.2010, which is also taken on record.

Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, July 02, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Kulvinder Singh Saini versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Kulvinder Singh Saini,
H.No. HL-216, Phase-I,
SAS Nagar, Mohali 160055 -Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges) Pb,
66-67 Sector 17D
Chandigarh -Respondent

CC No. 1562 of 2010

Present: (i) Sh. Kulvinder Singh Saini, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. R.T.Saini, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard
2. Respondent states that information having 1045 pages have been provided to the Complainant. Complainant states that information provided is not certified. Respondent is directed to provide certified copies of the information to the Complainant today itself.
3. The case is disposed of and closed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 1st July, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent


AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Appellant
(ii) Smt. Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director (Colleges), Pb on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent has submitted that penalty amount has been recovered from the salary of Smt. Maninder Dhillon. She further states that she has brought the amount of compensation to personally pay it to the Appellant today in the Commission. Appellant is absent. Respondent is directed to send the amount of compensation to the Appellant by cheque or by draft before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 15.07.10 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 29th June, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Kulwant Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Kulwant Singh,
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
House No. 17, Gali No. 15,
Gobindpura, P.O. Rayan,
Silk Mills, Near Gurunanak Dev University,
Amritsar. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (SE),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….…Respondent

CC No. 1881 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
Mr. Mohan Singh Dhanoa, Superintendent and Mr. Baljeet Singh, Sr. Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----

The RTI request dated 26.02.2010, is regarding selection of SC/Majhbi/Balmiki (Head Master/Head Mistress) Males and Females through C-DAC advertisement, dated 01.10.2006. On not getting information, a complaint was filed with the First Appellate Authority on 13.04.2010 and with the Commission on 07.04.2010.

2. A perusal of the case file reveals that a response was sent to the Complainant on 19.03.2010 and 18.05.2010, which is self explanatory. The Complainant is absent without intimation.
Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, June 28, 2010 State Information Commissioner

K S Gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

(098884-54343)
Sh. K.S. Gill,
Advocate,
10, Rose Avenue,
Near Officers Colony,
Ferozepur City ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Secondary)
Punjab,
Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No. 635/10
Order

Present:
Complainant Sh. K.S. Gill in person.
For the respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Deputy Director and Sh. Prabhjot Singh, Sr. Asstt. (98144-35442)


Respondent present states that Secretary Higher Education, Punjab vide letter No. 14/4/2010-3 EDU/559 dated 12.04.2010 informed the DPI (Colleges) to take action which is being implemented as per orders of the Commission. A copy of this action will be provided to the complainant as well.

With this assurance from the respondent, Complainant Sh. K.S. Gill is satisfied.

Therefore, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 21.06.2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

R.C. Verma,
76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar.
……Appellant
Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Hindu College, Amritsar..

2. First Appellate Authority
O/o Director Public Instructions (C), Punjab ….…Respondent

AC No. 464 of 2010
ORDER

Present: Appellant, Mr. R.C. Verma, in person.
None for the Respondent.
-----

The RTI request, dated 24.11.2009, is regarding seeking information about list of movable and immovable property acquired by Hindu Sabha since its inception etc.

2. The Respondent Principal (PIO) of the Hindu College responded on 27.11.2009, informing the Appellant that this information pertains to the Hindu Sabha. The Appellant approached the First Appellate Authority i.e. DPI (C), Punjab on 09.01.2010. Whereupon, on 15.02.2010, the Appellate Authority directed the Principal to forward his application to the Hindu Sabha within 15 days. Accordingly, this was done by the Principal on 27.02.2010. The Appellant’s appeal with the second Appellate Authority i.e. State Information Commission, Punjab is dated 31.05.2010

Since the PIO of the Hindu College has acted on the orders of the First Appellate Authority, at present the Commission has no role to play.

Therefore, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, June 21, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Kulvinder Singh Saini versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Kulvinder Singh Saini,
H.No. HL-216, Phase-I,
SAS Nagar, Mohali - 160055
--------Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges) Pb,
66-67/ Sector 17D
Chandigarh
-----------Respondent

CC No. 1562 of 2010

Present: (i) Sh. Kulvinder Singh Saini on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant states that no information has been provided to him. Respondent is absent. Respondent is directed to ensure that sought for information is provided to the Complainant free of cost before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 01.07.10 (at 10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 15th June, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Ashutosh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Ashutosh,
House No. 3179,
Sector 38-D, Chandigarh. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, Punjab,
Chandigarh. ….…Respondents

AC No. 416 of 2010
ORDER
Present:
Mr. Ashutosh, Appellant, in person.
None for the Respondents.
-----

The RTI request, dated 1.12.2009, addressed to DPI (Colleges), is regarding seeking the exact date by which grant-in-aid/arrears for the period 01.02.2002 to 30.11.2007 was released to S.D. College, Barnala. The Respondent-PIO O/O DPI (Colleges) forwarded this RTI request under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Principal/PIO, S.D. College, Barnala, on 14.12.2009. The complaint to the Commission was filed on 06.04.2010. The Appellant says that he has not received any response from the Principal/PIO, S.D. College, Barnala with reference to DPI(Colleges)’s letter of 14.12.2009. The information sought by the Appellant should be readily available with the Respondent-PIO O/O DPI(Colleges), Chandigarh. The Respondent-PIO is, therefore, directed to send the exact date pertaining to the release of grant-in-aid/arrears to the S.D. College for the period mentioned above i.e. 01.02.2002 to 30.11.2007, to the Appellant. The information should be sent, duly attested, through registered post to the Appellant before the next date of hearing with a copy of the covering letter to the Commission.

2. A copy of this order be also sent to the Principal, S.D. College, Barnala to supply the information regarding these dates, if held on record, to the Appellant. If already supplied, a copy of the covering letter be sent to the Commission.

The case is adjourned to 02.07.2010 (Friday) at 2.00 PM, court No.01, SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, June 11, 2010. State Information Commissioner.
cc : Principal/PIO,
S.D. College, Barnala

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh


STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Vijay Kumar, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Madan Lal, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
Arguments were heard on 21.5.2010 and judgment was reserved.

2. In this case, Appellant sought information from the PIO O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb vide his application dated 28.04.2009 and 04.06.2009. The sought for information was not provided by the PIO. Appellant filed his appeal with the first Appellate Authority i.e Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Dept. of Higher Education, Pb but there was no response to his appeal. Appellant filed second appeal on 11.09.2009 in the Commission and the hearing was fixed for 16.10.2009.

3. During the first hearing held on 16.10.2009, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent was present. On the second date of hearing i.e. 12.11.2009, Respondent provided information regarding application dated 28.04.2009 but no information was provided regarding application dated 04.06.2009 allegedly for the reason that the application of the Appellant dated 04.06.2009 was not available in their office. It was also submitted that this information is to be provided by the Establishment-Branch 1 & 2. During the third hearing held on 10.12.2009, Respondent provided the information to the Appellant in the Commission and after going through the information provided, Appellant pointed out certain deficiencies in the information provided. Thereafter, the deficiency in the information was made good by the Respondent during the subsequent hearings.

4. As there was delay in providing the information. PIO was directed to show cause why he be not penalized under Section 20 RTI Act 2005 and why the Appellant be not compensated for the detriment suffered by him on account of the delay in the supply of information.

5. Smt. Maninder Dhillon, who officiated as DPI till 14.09.2009 and Sh. Sohan Lal, DPI who assumed the charge on 05.10.2009 filed their replies in response to the show cause. In the reply, it was submitted that the Appellant sought information on four points in respect of Miss. Ritu Gupta, Lecturer English and Miss. Vijay Chopra, Lecturer Economics. The Appellant did not mention the names of the institutions where the above said lecturers were working. However, in response to the letter of the Directorate, the Appellant disclosed the name of the institution as Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala to which the information pertained. Accordingly Principal, Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala was requested to provide the information to the Appellant. However, the Principal, vide his letter dated 12.12.2009, informed that he has got the stay orders against the information which was asked by the Appellant from the Hon’ble High Court in C.W.P No. 20837/2006. Principal also submitted that the appointing authority of the lecturers is management of the College which maintains all the service record of the lecturers at the College level.

7. Even though, the information as available stands supplied, there has been undue delay in this regard. A careful perusal of the documents placed on record of the instant case shows beyond doubt that there is no proper mechanism in the O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb to receive the application and also provide information to the Appellant. The information which was to be provided by the different branches in the O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb was not provided in time as prescribed under the RTI Act 2005. The plea of the Respondent that the delay is due to the reason that application for information dated 28.04.2009 was not received in the office is not acceptable. Appellant has submitted that the cheque of Rs. 50/- (Rupees Fifty Only) sent with the application was encashed by the Respondent on 11.06.2009.

8. Had the office been properly maintained and administered, the reply to the RTI application would have been given due priority and attention. PIO and staff in the DPI office, therefore, has been clearly remiss in the discharge of their duties. This has resulted in much avoidable delay and consequent inconvenience and hardship to the Appellant. He is, therefore, entitled to be compensated under Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act 2005 for the loss and detriment suffered by him. In the circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) is awarded to the Appellant as compensation. I order accordingly.

9. The Respondent shall pay the compensation to the Appellant within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. This compensation is to be paid by the public authority i.e O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb. PIO has also not performed her duties. Information in response to application dated 28.04.09 was provided on 12.11.09. Similarly, information sought vide application dated 04.06.09 was provided on 10.12.09. During the period information was delayed by Smt. Maninder Dhillon was PIO. She is found to be responsible for the delay in providing the information. Taking a lenient view, as she was only an officiating DPI, a token penalty of Rs. 1000/- is, hereby, imposed. The penalty amount be deposited in the Government treasury under the relevant head within fifteen days of the receipt of this order and proof thereof be produced before the Commission on the next date of hearing.

10. Before parting with this order, I would wish to place on record that the first Appellate Authority i.e Secretary, Higher Education did not take any action on the appeal of the Appellant. He neither summoned the parties nor did he pass any order which shows that First Appellate Authority has not acted as per the mandate of the RTI Act 2005. This inaction on the part of the First Appellate Authority needs to be deprecated and it is hoped that the authorities entrusted with statutory duties under the RTI Act 2005 show more sense of responsibility and respect for rights of the citizens.

11. To come up for confirmation of compliance on 29.06.10 (10.30 AM). Copies of the order be sent to the parties. A copy of this order should also be sent to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh through registered post with the request that all concerned with this case should be properly sensitized to the rights of the people under the RTI Act.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 04.06.2010 State Information Commissioner

CC: (i) Secretary, Department of Higher Education (Pb), Chandigarh.
(ii) Public Information Officer O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb., Chandigarh
(iii) Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh

ks gill versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. K.S. Gill,
Advocate,
10, Rose Avenue,
Near Officers Colony,
Ferozepur City ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Secondary)
Punjab,
Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No. 635/10
Order

Present:
None for the Complainant.
For respondent: Sh. Nachhattar Singh, Supdt. (98147-03823)

The instant case CC 635/10 has been transferred from the court of Hon’ble SIC Sh. P.P.S. Gill vide order dated 26.03.2010. The original application for information is dated 01.12.2009 while the complaint has been filed on 17.02.2010. The information sought is: -

“Order of State Information Commission Punjab, Chandigarh regarding violation of RTI Act 2005 by Principal Vandana Shukla of S.D. College, Sultanpur Lodhi.”

CC No. 2445/08 by the same complaint was disposed of by me vide order dated 03.08.2009 when both the parties were satisfied.

In the instant case i.e. CC 635/10, respondent is directed to inform the Commission as to what action has been taken by Secretary Education regarding 7 days’ notice given to Harjinder Kaur by the Principal, S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, vide letter dated 11.09.2008 for filing an application under the RTI Act. I am also quoting the order passed by me on 04.02.2009 in CC No. 2445/08 for further reference: -

“Information has been provided to the complainant on five points except point No. (a) and certified copies of the dispatch register pertaining to 01.07.2007 to 10.06.2008. Rajinder Kaur who is representing the PIO submits that she is not authorized either to certify the copies or to answer the queries regarding the case. Therefore, remaining information should be provided to the complainant within 15 days and PIO is directed to be personally present at the next date of

hearing.

It is also pointed out that the Principal, S.D. College for Women in a letter dated 11.09.2008 has given seven days for an explanation from Harjinder Kaur wife of the complainant otherwise disciplinary action will be initiated against her under the rules laid down by the University Calendar. This letter which is attached along with order clearly stems from an attitude of defiance against the directions of the RTI Act, 2005 and Secretary Education should personally look into this matter.”

Respondent present who is from the DPI (Colleges) states that the application was transferred to them by the Secretary Higher Education and that he will provide this information by the next date of hearing.

To come up on 21.06.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber for confirmation of compliance.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 02.06.2010 State Information Commissioner

Harbhajan Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Harbhajan Kaur,
Retd. Senior Most Lecturer,
Govt. College for Girls, Patiala,
R/o 119, Civil Lines,
Patiala. ……

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….…Respondent

CC No. 429 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Dr. Harbhajan Kaur, in person.
Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Superintendent, and Mr. Rahul Singh, Dealing Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----

Substantial information was given to the Complainant on 10.05.2010 and the remaining information is handed over to the Complainant today and copy of the same is taken on record.
Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, May 31, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Chanan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Chanan Singh,
S/o Sh. Mota Singh,
R/o Arora Rasta,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala-144626.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3661 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Simran Singh, Advocate on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Smt. Raksha Devi, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that information as available in the record has been provided to the Complainant. She further states that as informed by the concerned branch information regarding clearance of audit objection and any correspondence as demanded by the Complainant is not available in their record. In view of the statement of the Respondent, the case is disposed of and closed. In case, it is proved that letter regarding, clearance of audit objection is available and the wrong information has been given, action under the RTI Act 2005 will be taken accordingly.

3. The case is, therefore, disposed of and closed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 28th May, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Harbhajan Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Dr. Harbhajan Kaur,
Retd. Senior Most Lecturer,
Govt. College for Girls, Patiala,
R/o 119, Civil Lines,
Patiala. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….…Respondent
CC No. 429 of 2010
ORDER
Present:
Dr. Harbhajan Kaur, Complainant, in person.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Supdt. and Mr.S. K. Modi, Asstt. Director, for
the Respondent.
-----
In compliance with the order, dated 12.04.2010, the Complainant has submitted her observations/deficiencies in the information on 19 points which were given to her on that day. She has submitted her deficiencies in two instalments which are on record.

2. The Respondent files a letter, dated 07.05.2010, which says that the remaining information, if any, will be supplied to the Complainant once her ACR is traced in the office. He also states that he requires additional time to provide a copy of Complainant’s ACR.

3. Today, the Complainant and the Respondent have met and the Complainant has inspected a civil writ case file and identified certain documents. The Complainant is willing to go to the office of the Respondent after the court today, where the Respondent will provide her attested photo-copies of the documents that she has identified.

4. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent will either provide a copy of the requisitioned ACR or will submit an affidavit to the Commission before the next date of hearing, stating and justifying its non-availability. In case an affidavit is being submitted, then through a written submission, the Respondent will state action initiated to locate the said ACR, including holding an enquiry and apportioning blame for the loss. FIR may be filed in case it is felt necessary.

The case is adjourned to 31.05.2010 (Monday) at 11.00 AM, Court No.1, SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, May 10, 2010. State Information Commissioner

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent


AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Vijay Kumar, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Madan Lal, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Appellant states that he filed his application for information on 04.06.09 and Smt. Maninder Dhillon remained PIO from 04.06.09 to 14.09.09. Penalty should be imposed on her for not providing the information in time. Appellant further states that he should be provided information regarding Vijay Chopra i.e. salary received by him during December 1988 as per record of DPI (colleges). Respondent states that only grant is given by the DPI and the disbursement of salary is made by the College authorities. Respondent has agreed to provide the details regarding release of grant for the salary of Vijay Chopra for the period of December 1988 on the next date of hearing. Smt. Maninder Dhillon who was PIO from filing of the complaint till 14.09.09 should also file an affidavit showing cause why action should not be taken against her and why Complainant should not be compensated for not supplying the information within the statutorily prescribed period of time.

3. Adjourned to 21.05.10 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 29th April, 2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
R.C. Verma,
Retd. Principal,
A-76, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. ……Appellant


Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (C),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director Public Instructions (C),
Punjab, Chandigarh
….…Respondent
AC No. 186 of 2010

ORDER

Present:
Mr. R.C. Verma, Appellant, in person.
Representative, Ms Gursharan Kaur, Sr. Assistant, for the Respondent.
-----
In this case the notice of hearing was inadvertently sent on a wrong address on 17.03.2010 and even the title was wrongly typed in the order dated 05.04.2010. The correct notice of hearing was sent to the Appellant on 16.04.2010. The information sought is regarding action taken report on a complaint lodged with the Respondent-PIO DPI (Colleges) on 19.10.2009 regarding non-implementation of the retirement benefits of certain colleges. On not getting information, the appeal was filed with the Commission bearing diary No.2686, dated 18.02.2010. The information seeker is the President-Welfare Association of the Superannuated Employees of the Aided Colleges.

2. The Respondent says that they have not received the RTI request dated 20.10.2009. A photo copy of the original RTI request is handed over to the Respondent. Respondent is directed to furnish the requisite information, duly attested, as per record, to the Appellant before the next date of hearing with a compliance report to the Commission.

The case is adjourned to 24.05.2010 (Monday) at 11.00 A.M., Court No.01, SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 26, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Saradavinder Goyal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Saradavinder Goyal, Advocate,
House No. 397, 2nd Floor,
Sector 9, Panchkula,
District Haryana. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 1024 of 2010

ORDER

Present:
Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Complainant, in person.
Representative, Mr. Madan Lal, Supdtt., with Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent.
-----

The information sought is regarding the College Baba Farid Group of Institutions situated on Bathinda-Muktsar road. The RTI request is dated 13.01.2010. The Respondent-DPI (Colleges) sent complete information to the Complainant on 10.02.2010, a copy of which is on record.
Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 23, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Kulvinder Singh Saini versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Kulvinder Singh Saini,
H. No. HL- 216,
Phase 1, SAS Nagar,
(Mohali) 160055. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 1073 of 2010

ORDER

Present:
Mr. Kulwinder Singh Saini, Complainant, in person.
Representative, Mr. Madan Lal, Supdtt., for the Respondent.
-----
The information sought is regarding collection of PTA fund from the Government aided private colleges on 06 points. The RTI request is dated 26.10.2009. The Secretary, Higher Education, to whom the request is addressed, transferred this application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, to the DPI (Colleges) on 15.12.2009 and the Complainant’s complaint with the Commission is dated 18.02.2010.

2. The DPI (Colleges) sent a reply to the Complainant on 13.04.2010, a copy of which is taken on record.

Since the information stands supplied , the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 23, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Chanan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Chanan Singh,
S/o Sh. Mota Singh,
R/o Arora Rasta,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala-144626.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3661 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Baljeet Singh on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Smt. Raksha Devi, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent and Complainant have sought another date.

3. Adjourned to 28.05.10 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 23rd April, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Neelam Bhardwaj versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054

Neelam Bhardwaj,
50 Govt. Officers Colony,
Behind Old Sessions Court,
Ludhiana. -Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. -Respondent

CC No. 667 of 2010

ORDER

Present: Advocate, Mr. Ramandeep Chawla, for the Complainant.
Mr. Kartar Chand, Superintendent, for the Respondent.

The requisite information is handed over to the representative of the Complainant in my presence today, who is satisfied with the same. He also submits his Vakalatnama to represent the Complainant.

The case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(P. P. S. Gill)
State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

R.C. Verma,
Principal (Retd.),
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb. Chd.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb. Chd. ….…Respondents

AC No. 232 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Mr. R.C. Verma, Appellant, in person
Dr. (Ms) Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director, for DPI (C), Punjab, with
Mr. Sanjay Khanna, APIO-Lecturer, for Hindu College, Amritsar.
-----

Information sought is regarding fixation of pay scale of non-teaching staff and the service books, vide RTI request dated 20.10.2009. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority is dated 02.12.2009 and to the Commission is dated 16.02.2010.
2. Respondent assures to give details about pay fixation of non-teaching staff, duly attested, within 07 days to the Appellant through registered post, while A.C.Rs. will not be provided .

3. The Appellant says that he is a retired college teacher and was Principal of the Hindu College, Amritsar (Respondent in the instant case), and has taught in the same institution for 25 years.
When asked to justify what public interest is involved, should the information be disclosed, he failed to do so.

4. He has filed a number of RTI requests with the parent college on identical subjects in the recent weeks which have been listed before the bench of the undersigned as well as other Commissioners. Given his long years in the Respondent College, it is presumed that he is well conversant with the internal
functioning of the Hindu College. It is also pertinent to point out that a perusal of the case file reveals that the Respondent has been promptly responding to all RTI requests filed by Mr. R.C. Verma and others.

5. I have observed that the Appellant is repeatedly seeking the same information in different forms and couched in different language for different periods of time without justifying the public interest involved, should the information be disclosed.

6. In this backdrop, the Appellant is advised that the beneficent provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, are not meant to be misused by the information seekers. Conferment of a right under a statute pre-supposes that it shall be exercised in a proper and fair manner. Mis-use of a right is by itself a negation of the right. No legal right can brook its being misused to the detriment of a person supposed to discharge his duties correlative to the legal right in question.

7. In the instant case, it is found that the Appellant has been, for no valid reason, misusing the machinery provided under the RTI Act, 2005. I shall be legally bound to taken note of it and explore suitable legal action.

8. The Deputy Registrar is directed to ensure that cases which have been disposed of are not sent to other benches to avoid duplication of effort.

The case is, accordingly, disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 16, 2010. State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

R.C. Verma,
Principal (Retd.),
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb. Chd.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb. Chd. ….…Respondents

AC No. 234 of 2010
ORDER

Present: Mr. R.C. Verma, Appellant, in person
Dr. (Ms) Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director, for DPI (C), Punjab, with
Mr. Sanjay Khanna, APIO-Lecturer, for Hindu College, Amritsar.
-----

Information sought is regarding fixation of pay scale of teaching staff and the service books, vide RTI request dated 20.10.2009. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority is dated 02.12.2009 and to the Commission is dated 16.02.2010.

2. Respondent assures to give details about pay fixation of teaching staff, duly attested, within 07 days to the Appellant through registered post, while A.C.Rs. will not be provided .

3. The Appellant says that he is a retired college teacher and was Principal of the Hindu College, Amritsar (Respondent in the instant case), and has taught in the same institution for 25 years.
When asked to justify what public interest is involved, should the information be disclosed, he failed to do so.

4. He has filed a number of RTI requests with the parent college on identical subjects in the recent weeks which have been listed before the bench of the undersigned as well as other Commissioners. Given his long years in the Respondent College, it is presumed that he is well conversant with the internal
functioning of the Hindu College. It is also pertinent to point out that a perusal of the case file reveals that the Respondent has been promptly responding to all RTI requests filed by Mr. R.C. Verma and others.

5. I have observed that the Appellant is repeatedly seeking the same information in different forms and couched in different language for different periods of time without justifying the public interest involved, should the information be disclosed.

6. In this backdrop, the Appellant is advised that the beneficent provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, are not meant to be misused by the information seekers. Conferment of a right under a statute pre-supposes that it shall be exercised in a proper and fair manner. Mis-use of a right is by itself a negation of the right. No legal right can brook its being misused to the detriment of a person supposed to discharge his duties correlative to the legal right in question.

7. In the instant case, it is found that the Appellant has been, for no valid reason, misusing the machinery provided under the RTI Act, 2005. I shall be legally bound to taken note of it and explore suitable legal action.

8. The Deputy Registrar is directed to ensure that cases which have been disposed of are not sent to other benches to avoid duplication of effort.

The case is, accordingly, disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 16, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Satish Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Satish Kumar,
House No. 2836, Guru Nanak Colony,
Opposite GNE College, Gill Road,
Ludhiana.
……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (SE),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….…Respondent

CC No. 826 of 2010
ORDER
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Assistant Director, Ms. Neelam Rehan, in person.
Mr. R. P. Singh, Superintendent, office of DEO (SE), Jalandhar,
Mr. Baljeet Singh, (Clerk), office of DEO (SE), Muktsar,
Mr. Varinder Kumar (Jr. Asstt.), office of DEO (SE), Barnala,
Mr. Balkar Singh (Clerk), office of DEO (SE), Patiala.
-----

The RTI request of the Complainant is dated 27.10.2009. The complaint with the Commission is dated 04.02.2010. The information sought is regarding primary and secondary schools in rural areas in each District.

2. The Respondent vide letter dated 04.03.2010 and 08.04.2010, has informed the Complainant that this information can be obtained from the respective DEOs in the state who themselves are a public authority/PIO.

3. The Complainant vide his letter dated 05.04.2010, has stated that since he can seek information from the PIOs at each District Head Quarters under the RTI Act, 2005, therefore, he wishes to withdraw the present application.

Therefore, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 16, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Harbhajan Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Harbhajan Kaur,
Retd. Senior Most Lecturer,
Govt. College for Girls, Patiala,
R/o 119, Civil Lines,
Patiala.
……Complainant
Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….…Respondent
CC No. 429 of 2010
ORDER

Present: Complainant, Dr. Harbhajan Kaur, in person.
Representative, Mr. Kartar Chand, Supdt. and Ms. Surinder Kaur, Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----

The Respondent hands over the requisite information on all the 19 points to the Complainant in my presence today and says that there is nothing more on record to give to the Complainant.

2. The Complainant may go through the information supplied to her and point out deficiencies para-wise and submit the same to the Respondent PIO within one week. The Respondent will address those deficiencies and supply the information, duly attested to the Complainant, before the next date of hearing.

The case is adjourned to 10.05.2010 (Monday) at 11.00 AM, Court No.01, SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh for confirmation.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 12, 2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

R.C. Verma,
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb. Chd. ….…Respondents

AC No. 101 of 2010
ORDER

Present: Appellant, Mr. R.C. Verma, in person.
APIO, Mr. Vimal Mehra., for Hindu College, Amritsar.
-----

The Appellant and the Respondent have mutually agreed to meet in the office of the APIO on 19.04.2010 (Monday) at 11.00 AM. The APIO will charge the fee in proportion to the exact pages to be supplied, duly attested, to the Appellant @ Rs. 2/- per page.

With this, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, April 12, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Neelam Bhardwaj versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054


Neelam Bhardwaj,
50 – Govt. Officers Colony,
Behind Old Sessions Court,
Ludhiana. ------Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ----------Respondent

CC No. 667 of 2010
ORDER

Present: Complainant, Ms. Neelam Bharadwaj, in person.
Representative, Mr. Kartar Chand, Supdt., for the Respondent.


The RTI request is dated 24.11.2009, as per Complainant’s oral submission. The information demanded pertains to seeking a copy of her own ACRs from the year 2000 onwards including remarks of DPI and Secretary and also copy of the proceedings of DPC etc. Her complaint to the Commission is dated 23.01.2010.

2. The Respondent submits a letter dated 25.03.2010, to the Commission wherein, it is stated that the requisite information was sent to the Complainant on 09.03.2010. The Complainant acknowledges the receipt of the same. Copy of the letter dated 09.03.2010, is taken on record. The Complainant acknowledges the receipt of copies of ACRs. Insofar as proceedings of DPC and concerned, Respondent has written at point No. 2 that the proceedings of DPC, held on 16.01.2009, are pending with the Secretary and will be sent to the Complainant as and when received back. The Complainant says that the meeting of the DPC in which her name was fixed was held in August, 2008, while the Respondent says that no DPC meeting was held in August, 2008. The PIO is directed to confirm if any DPC meeting took place in August, 2008 and if so a copy of the proceedings, if approved, and are on record, be sent to the Complainant before the next date of hearing. Incase DPC was not held, it should be intimated to the Complainant, in writing, with a compliance report to the Commission.

The case is adjourned to 19.04.2010 (Monday), Court No. 1, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh at 11.00 AM for confirmation.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
State Information Commissioner

Sajal Koser versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sajal Koser,
Advocate,
H. No. 521, Sector 15-A,
Chandigarh. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Secretary Higher Education, Govt. of
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondents


AC No. 167 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
None for the Appellant.
Representative, Mr. Baljeet Singh, Sr. Asstt., for the Respondent.
----

The Appellant vide his RTI request dated 07.08.2009, has demanded a photo copy of Memo No. 7331-Se-14/21-98-(2) dated 12.02.2009” and also some answers in “yes” or “no”. His appeal to the Commission is registered at SICP Diary No. 2233, dated 15.02.2010.

2. The Respondent submits a letter addressed to the Commission dated 26.03.2010, appended to which is a copy of the letter dated 10.02.2010. This response was sent to the Appellant in response to his RTI request.

Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 26, 2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

R.C. Verma,
Principal Retired,
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar.
……Appellant
Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Hindi College, Amritsar.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

AC No. 05 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Mr. R. C. Verma, in person.
PIO, Mr. Vimal Mehra, in person.
Representative, Mr. R. T. Saini, Supdt., office of DPI (C), Punjab.
-----

As per Order dated 01.02.2010, the Principal has submitted the Affidavit. A copy of which is given to the Appellant in my presence today.

The case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 22, 2010 State Information Commissioner

RC Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. R.C. Verma,
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. …..Complainant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. …..Respondents

AC- 1023/2009

Order

Present: Complainant Sh. R.C. Verma in person
For the respondent: Sh. Rakesh Mehra, Principal.

The information sought 14.12.2009 is regarding functioning and governance of Hindu Collegiate Senior Secondary School, Amritsar.

Compliant has given a letter dated 15.03.2010 wherein objections have been pointed out in the information supplied.

I have gone through each point with the complainant and the respondent and have come to the conclusion that all information has been provided to the complainant. Certain points, according to complainant, are false but he has been advised to challenge these either before the competent authority or a court. He is advised to take up the matter with the concerned authority.

Complainant is satisfied. Therefore, the matter is hereby disposed of and closed.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh. (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 15.03.2010 State Information Commissioner

Harbhajan Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Harbhajan Kaur,
Retd. Senior Most Lecturer,
Govt. College for Girls, Patiala,
R/o 119, Civil Lines,
Patiala. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….…Respondent

CC No. 429 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Dr. Harbhajan Kaur, Complainant, in person.
Mr. Kartar Chand, Supdtt. with Mr. Darshan Kumar, Sr. Asstt. for the Respondent.
-----

The Complainant, vide her RTI request dated 30.09.2009, has demanded information on 19 issues. Not getting any response, she filed a complaint to the Commission which is registered at diary No. 1001, dated 25.01.2010. The Respondent today submits a letter that they require two weeks’ time to provide the requisite information. Granted.

2. The Respondent is directed to supply pointwise information as and if it exists on record, duly attested, before the next date of hearing with a copy of the covering letter to the Commission.

The case is adjourned to 12.04.2010 (Monday) at 11.00 AM, Court No. 1, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 15, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Mangat Ram Sahni versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Mangat Ram Sahni,
R/o Sahni House, # 502-L,
Street No. 5, Gautam Nagar,
Una Road, Hoshiarpur 146001. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 242 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Mr. Mangat Ram Sahni, Complainant, in person.

Representative, Mr. Amarjit Singh, Sr. Assistant, for the Respondent.
-----

The Complainant sought information on 26.08.2009 regarding release of grant etc. to College from where he has retired. On not getting response he filed a complaint to the Commission on 29.12.2009. However, there is a letter from the Respondent to the Complainant dated 15.09.2009 on record which gives point-wise response of all the 05 points. Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 05, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

Karnail Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Karnail Singh,
S/o Sh. Sheri Ram,
R/o Village & P.O. Manakmajra,
Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC-240/2010 & CC-241/2010
ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Mr. Karnail Singh, in person.
Mr. Arjun Singh, Superintendent, for the Respondent.


The Complainant has filed two RTI requests, both dated 19.10.2009, regarding some inquiry reports against the College Principal and stoppage of his own salary. The Complainant filed his complaints with the Commission, both dated 28.12.2009. Therefore, these two cases i.e. CC-240/2010 & CC-241/2010 are clubbed together.

2. The Respondent hands over the response to the Complainant in my presence today on both these complaints. The Respondent will send a copy of the enquiry report as and when completed with compliance report to the Commission.

3. A copy each of this order be placed in the two files.

Both the cases, i.e. CC-240/2010 & CC-241/2010, are thus disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 05, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent


AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, the Complainant
Sh. Sohan Lal, DPI(Colleges), the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Appellant states that salary detail of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma has not been provided by the Respondent. Respondent states that his salary details are not available with their office. Appellant should get this information from the concerned college. Respondent further states that college Principal has informed him that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted stay regarding providing information in CWP No. 20837. Respondent has not provided the copy of stay order sent to him by the Principal of the College. He should submit the copy of stay order before the next date of hearing. In response to the order showing cause, Respondent has filed an affidavit which is taken on record. Copy of the same is given to the Appellant today in the Commission.

3. Appellant states that he wants to submit his written reply. He is advised to submit his reply before the next date of hearing.

4 Adjourned to 29.04.10 (at 02.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 5th March, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Chanan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Chanan Singh,
S/o Sh. Mota Singh,
R/o Arora Rasta,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala-144626.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3661 of 2009

Present:
Sh. Simran Singh on behalf of the Complainant
Sh. Arjun Singh, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that the concerned files were searched in the old record but could not be traced. He has sought more time. Respondent is directed to provide the sought for information to the Complainant before the next date of hearing

3. Adjourned to 23.04.10 (at 11.00 AMM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 4th March , 2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Sh. R.C. Verma,
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar.
…Appellant
VERSUS

1. Public Information Officer,
O/O Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. Appellate Authority
O/O Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. …Respondents


A.C. No. 837 of 2009
Order
Present:
Complainant Sh. R.C. Verma
Sh. Narinder Kaur, Sr. Asstt. for the respondent.

The respondent present today is Senior Assistant in the office of DPI (Colleges). Therefore, directions are given that the PIO should be present on the next date of hearing since the summons of hearing categorically state that as under:

“You are required to appear before the Commission on the said date and time either personally or through an authorized representative not below the rank of Assistant Public Information Officer, who should be well conversant with the facts of the case and his statement of facts will be treated as if it is given by you and you will be responsible for its correctness. In case no appearance is made on your behalf, the case will be decided ex-parte in your absence.”

She is new to the job and does not know much about the case. Directions are also given that information with respect to point no. 3 which was pending earlier should be provided to the complainant within 15 days. Incidentally, the same directions were given at the time of last hearing but none has been followed.

To come up on 17.03.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber for further proceedings.
Copies of the Orders be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh. Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 22.02.2010 State information Commissioner

Bhupinder Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Bhupinder Singh,
House No. B-1/127/MCH,
Gali Gobindgarh,
Hoshiarpur 146001. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab. ……Respondent

CC No. 142 of 2010
ORDER

Present:
Representative, Mr. Jagat Singh, for the Complainant.
Representative, Ms. Raksha Devi, Sr. Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----

The Complainant, on 15.10.2009, submitted his request for information under the RTI Act to the PIO, Registrar, Panjab University, seeking information regarding issue of appointment orders of the Complainant himself etc. On not getting any response, a compliant was filed with the Commission on 20.10.2009

2. Inadvertently, a notice of hearing was sent to the DPI (C), Punjab, who has also made a written submission, which is taken on record. The Complainant has sought information from the Panjab University, and even filed an appeal dated 18.11.2009, before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Panjab University, on not getting the information. Respondent PIO does not come under the ambit of the Punjab State Information Commission, therefore, the case is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, February 22, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Malkiat Singh Josan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Malkiat Singh Josan
S/o Sh. Ujagar Singh,
H. NO. 15, Sukh Enclave,
Talwandi Chaudhrian,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt. Kapurthala. …..Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges)
Punjab,
Chandigarh. …..Respondent

CC- 3522/2009
Order

Present:
None for the Complainant.
For Respondent: Sh. Arjan Singh, Superintendent.

The information has been provided to the Complainant on 04.09.2009 by registered post.

None was present on behalf of the Complainant on 23.12.2009 and same is the case today. It appears the Complainant is satisfied with the information.

The matter is hereby disposed of and closed.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh. Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 18.02.2010 State Information Commissioner

Chanan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Chanan Singh,
S/o Sh. Mota Singh,
R/o Arora Rasta,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala-144626.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3661 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Chanan Singh, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Arjun Singh, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that complete information regarding item No. 1 of his application has not been provided to him. He has sought copies of correspondence which took place in the O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb regarding removal of objection. Respondent is directed to provide the remaining information to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 04.03.10 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 18th February , 2010 State Information Commissioner

Bagga Arti Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Bagga Arti Verma
# 139, Repudashanpura,
Nabha - 147201 (Distt. Patiala) -------Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (College), Punjab,
Chandigarh -------Respondent
CC- 3628-2009
Order
Present: None for the Complainant.
Sh. Raman Kalia, Sr. Assistant for the respondent.

The information sought is regarding part time lecturers.

Respondent states that while rest of the information has been passed on to the Complainant, however, information with respect to 18 colleges is still to be received and compiled and the same will be sent to the Complainant as soon as the same is ready.

To come up on 21.04.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber for confirmation of compliance.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Chandigarh. Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner

Bhupinder Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Bhupinder Singh,
House No. B-1/127/MCH,
Gali Gobindgarh,
Hoshiarpur 146001 ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 110 of 2010

ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
Representative, Mr. Arjun Singh, Supdt., for the Respondent.
-----
The applicant vide his request for information under the RTI Act, dated 28.10.2009, addressed to the DPI (Colleges), wants to know the action taken on his letter dated 24.09.2009. However, the letter dated 24.09.2009, is neither in the record file nor according to the representative of the Respondent is on record in their files.

2. The Respondent submits a reply sent to the Complainant on 29.12.2009, which is taken on record.

Since the information sought is not known, the case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, February 15, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.

…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent


AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Arjan Singh, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Appellant states that he has filed two applications for information dated 28.04.09 and 04.06.09. Information relating to application dated 28.04.09 was provided on 12.11.09 in the Commission. Respondent has provided some more information today in the Commission regarding deficiencies pointed out by the Appellant. Appellant after going through the information states that still complete information has not been provided. Appellant states that he has attended five hearings in the Commission. He should be compensated for the harassment suffered by him in getting the information and penalty should be imposed on the PIO. Mrs. Maninder Dhillon, Ex-PIO, and Mr. Sohan Lal, present PIO as per RTI Act.

3. It is observed that even after five hearings, Respondent has failed to provide complete information to the Appellant.

4. In view of the foregoing, PIO Mrs. Maninder Dhillon, Ex-PIO, and Mr. Sohan Lal, present PIO O/o DPI(Colleges) Pb, are directed to show cause as to :-

(i) Why supply of information as per RTI request sent to him has been delayed.

(ii) Why penalty be not imposed upon them for not supplying the information within time as prescribed under RTI Act 2005.

(iii) Why Complainant should not be compensated for the harassment and financial loss suffered by her in getting the information.

5. Mrs. Maninder Dhillon, Ex-PIO, and Mr. Sohan Lal, present- PIO O/o DPI(Colleges) Pb, are directed to file an affidavit in this regard before the next date of hearing.

6. Adjourned to 05.03.10 (at 11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties by registered post.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 4th February, 2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
R.C. Verma,
Principal Retired,
A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ----------Appellant
Vs
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Hindi College, Amritsar.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh. -------Respondent

AC No. 05 of 2010
ORDER

Present: Mr. R.C. Verma, Appellant, in person.
Mr. Bimal Mehra, APIO, for the Respondent.


The applicant vide his RTI request dated 29.09.2009 has sought information on 06 points from the Respondent-PIO of the Hindu College. On not getting any information, he filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority-DPI(Colleges) on 29.10.2009. The first appellate authority responded his appeal on 26.11.2009. The Appellant has pointed to the observations made by the first appellate authority at serial No.14 of the response dated 26.11.2009. Inter alia, the Respondent-DPI (Colleges) has directed the Principal of Hindu College to supply, after thorough research of the record, a certificate to the Appellant that the relevant record is not available in the college within 30 days. In response to that the Appellant says, a copy of the certificate was issued by the Principal on 23.12.2009 to the effect that the relevant record is not available. The Appellant contests the certificate given to him by the Principal of the Hindu College.

2. I direct the Respondent –Principal-cum-PIO to give an affidavit to the Commission before the next date of hearing stating and justifying that no record is available with the college.
3.
The case is adjourned to 01.03.2010 (Monday) at 11.00 AM, in court No.01, SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh. (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, February 01, 2010. State Information Commissioner

Chanan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Chanan Singh,
S/o Sh. Mota Singh,
R/o Arora Rasta,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala-144626.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3661 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Kartar Singh, Suptd. and Smt. Raman Kalia, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant is absent. Respondent states that sought for information except item No.3 i.e a copy of Principal’s office letter No.502 dated 10.01.1987 written by Principal to the DPI (Colleges) Punjab for pervious pay protection of Prof. Chanan Singh Lecturer in English is not available in his office, as the information being sought is more than twenty years old. Rest of the information relating to item No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 has been sent to the Complainant on 15.01.2010. Since, the information as available in the record has been provided. No further action is required.
3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 22nd January, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Note: After the hearing, Sh. Simran Singh, Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Complainant states that he has not received any information. Copy of the information provided to the Commission is handed over to the Complainant. He has requested that some more time be given to go through the information and point out the deficiencies, if any. Keeping in view, the request of the Complainant, the case is adjourned to 18.02.10 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 22nd January, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Rakesh Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Hari Om,
House No. 52, Professor Colony,
Opposite Punjabi University,
Near Punjab & Sindh Bank,
Patiala-147002. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (SE),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
……Respondent

CC No. 3824 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, in person.
None for the Respondent.
-----
The Punjab Government has today declared a holiday to mourn the death of Mr. Jyoti Basu.

2. The Complainant vide his RTI request dated 01.10.2009, addressed to the PIO, office of DPI (SE), Punjab, has sought information on the status regarding the post of Lecturer (Punjabi), Sports, (General category) in respect of registration No. 7252, which is Applicant’s own. On not getting any response, he filed a complaint with the Commission, bearing SICP diary No. 19727, dated 10.12.2009. So far, the Complainant says, he has not received any information.

3. The PIO is directed to furnish the requisite information to the Complainant, as per record, duly attested, through registered post with an endorsement to the Commission, before the next date of hearing.

The case is adjourned to 08.02.2010 (Monday), Court No. 1, 2nd Floor, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh at 11.00 AM.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, January 18, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Hitender Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Hitender Jain c/o Resurgence India,
903, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Elementary), Pb.,
SCO No.31-34, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh-160017. ___________ Respondent

CC No. 1305 of 2009

ORDER
Information stands provided.

2. Petitions moved by Shri Hitender Jain complainant c/o Resurgence India, Ludhiana were dealt with (CC-1303/2009 dealing with Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, CC-1304/2009 dealing with Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab and CC-1305/2009 dealing with Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, Chandigarh. While dealing with these three cases, the information was provided and details were discussed in respective file of the case. I will be failing if I do not mention certain facts which have come to my notice and these are mentioned below:-

(a) Red Cross fund was collected by Headmistress/Headmasters/ Principles of the institutions but no records were maintained about the collection; though the amount collected runs in crores of Rupees year after year allover Punjab.

(b) The amount collected was to be used for specific purposes for which a major part was kept in schools and the remaining part was to be sent to the respective District Education Officers.

(c) The District Education Officers concerned was to keep back some amount and the remaining amount to Indian Red Cross, Punjab State. Both the institutions as well as the District Education Officers never kept any account. At times even no separate bank account was opened to keep a track of the amount. It is also seen that the money kept was either in current account as no interest is shown to have been earned by way of deposit for years together. It has also been observed that some institutions did not spend any amount collected for the Red Cross either for Red Cross or for any other purpose.

(d) Mostly it has been noticed that amount collected particularly in elementary schools and secondary schools has been spent for purposes other than Red Cross. Money has been spent for repair of buildings/furniture, telephone bill, office expenses, payment of electricity bill, payment of TA/DA for journeys affected by the institutional staff etc.

(e) It is observed that Head of the institutions has been treating the Red Cross collections as a discretionary fund which was being used according to his discretion and without any financial provision/sanction.

(f) It is also observed that District Education Officer/Audit Parties usually did not bother to check the records of such collection and expenditure therefrom.

(g) District Education Officers never kept a track about the amount collected by the institutions falling in their jurisdiction nor about the amount received from them. District Education Officers also did not keep any separate account books etc. to indicate the collection received from the institutions and money which was sent to Red Cross or the head where it was spent.

(h) As far as colleges, they were to collect the money and send the same to Red Cross directly without routing it through the District Education Officer. It is observed that they mostly did not bother to do the same.

(i) It is observed that as far as Red Cross is concerned they received contribution but never kept a record about the amount which was to be received by them nor they had any liaison meeting with the District Education Officers to keep a track about the collection made by the institutions, amount received by them and amount received by the Red Cross. As such there was no cross checking. Indian Red Cross, Punjab State treated this contribution as gift horse and never bothered to count the teeth of the same. Whatever amount was received by them, the Red Cross people were happy with that. Record do not indicates, if the Red Cross people visited any institution to check about the expenses incurred by the institutions and District Education Officers regarding the amount collected for Red Cross.

(j) Once the amount has been collected from the student for a specific purpose for all consideration, it becomes a Government property anybody who misuses the same commits an act which tantamounts to criminal breach of trust/embezzlement.

(k) As per newspaper reports, Deputy Commissioners in the districts have misused the funds collected for Red Cross and on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court a inquiry was conducted and action against some of the officers have been taken. Hon’ble High Court has constituted a Committee of two judges to go into the details. As it is not possible to go in every institution’s case by Commission, a separate inquiry needs to be made and action has to be taken against all concerned who have committed any offence punishable under Criminal Procedures Code or other laws of land.

(l) It is a fit case in which State Government may constitute a Committee to look into the amount collected from individual schools and disbursement/expenditure made out of the same.

(m) To avoid such mistake to occur in future, it is suggested that a separate cash book should be maintained by every institution indicating the number of students class-wise and the total amount collected and its disbursement. District Education Officer/Inspection Officer in turn should check up these cash books and they should cross check entries. Similarly, Secretary, State Red Cross Society should do the same with the respective District Education Officer about receipt of the money.

(n) Similarly the schools have collected funds and sending the same Punjab State Child Welfare Council. But no records are being kept either by the institutions/ Council to indicate the amount which was due to be collected and actual collection. The Council has claimed that they are an autonomous body and as such not under the Control/supervision of the Government Department etc., though crores of rupees, collected from schools is provided to it at the directions of the Government year after year. It was claimed that as per the directions of Indian Council for Child Welfare (their Head Office), the Child Welfare Council do not come under the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005. The Committee, referred to above, may look into the same also alongwith Red Cross Collection and expenditure.

(o) On the receipt of the report from the Committee, which must be date-bound, the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab may direct the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Education to take action as provided under Section 39 (viii) of Cr.P.C., as the acts are not covered under general exceptions mentioned in Indian Penal Code 1860.

( R. K. Gupta)
January 13, 2010. State Information Commissioner.

CC

1. Shri S.C. Aggarwal, Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. The Director General of School Education, Punjab, SCO No104-106, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
3. The Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
4. The Director of Public Instructions (School Education), Punjab, Chandigarh.

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent


AC No. 664 of 2009

Present :
(i) Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Pritpal Singh, DCFA, on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Appellant states that he filed an application for information on 04.06.2009, but still incomplete information has been provided to him. He has already pointed out deficiencies vide his letter dated 26.12.2009. Respondent is directed to provide complete information to the Complainant before the next date of hearing failing which action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 will be initiated.

3. Adjourned to 04.02.10 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 07th January, 2010 State Information Commissioner

R C Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Mob: 94171-65474
Shri R.C.Verma,
# A-76, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. …..Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o (1) Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, SCO:66-67, Sect.17-D, Chandigarh.
(2) First Appellate Authority,
Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ….Respondent


AC-837/2009

ORDER

Present: -
Shri R.C.Verma, Appellant in person.
None on behalf of the Respondent.

Sh. R.C.Verma filed his original application dated 6.8.2009 to the PIO, O/o the DPI (C), Punjab, Chandigarh. After waiting for stipulated period of 30 days when he did not get any information he filed his First Appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority on 18.9.2009.
Again on receiving no reply from the first appellate authority he preferred Second Appeal in the Commission on 23.10.2009.

The information is regarding:
(i) “Date of appointment of Shri Aarun Mehra as Lecturer in Political Science, Hindu College, Amritsar;
(ii) Has he passed Matric level examinatioin in Punjabi Language ?
(iii) Was passing of Matric level examinatioin in Punjabi Language a necessary condition in his case for claiming grant under 95% Grant-in-Aid Scheme;
(iv) All the record pertaining to appointment of Shri Arun Mehra till now.”

The Appellant states that he has received all the information as per letter dated 15.12.2009 except the information on point No.(iii). He also submitted that the information he has received is un-attested. Directions are given to the PIO, O/o DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh to provide remaining information within 15 days with compliance report to the Commission.

To come up on 22.02.2010 at 12:00 Noon in the Chamber for confirmation of compliance.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.



Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 04.01.2010 State Information Commissioner.

S P Bansal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

S. P. Bansal,
House No. 231, Ward No. 9,
Krishna Basti,
Samana-147201, District Patiala. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
……Respondent

CC No. 3340 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Mr. S.P. Bansal, in person.
Representative, Mr. R. T. Saini, Supdt., and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Sr. Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----

As per my order dated 07.12.2009, the DPI (Colleges) has submitted his Affidavit which is taken on record and accepted. The Complainant acknowledges the receipt of information from the Respondent College. The information has been given point-wise. If he has any grievance, he can take course to legal or administrative action against the Respondent.

As far as supply of information is concerned, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, January 04, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Chanan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Chanan Singh,
S/o Sh. Mota Singh,
R/o Arora Rasta,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala-144626.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3661 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Simran Singh on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Mr. Simran Singh, counsel appeared on behalf of the Complainant and states that no information has been provided to him with respect to his application for information dated 03.10.2009. Respondent is absent. Respondent is directed to provide the sought for information to the Complainant before the next date of hearing, failing which action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 will be initiated.

3. Adjourned to 22.01.2010 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 29th December, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Malkiat Singh Josan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Sh. Malkiat Singh Josan,
S/o Sh. Ujagar Singh
H. No. 15, Sukh Enclave,
Talwandi Chaudhrian,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt. Kapurthala.
…Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o D.P.I. (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh
…Respondent
C.C. No. 3522 of 2009
ORDER

Present: -
None present on behalf of the parties.

In this case, the complainant, vide his application dated 07.08.2009, has sought information regarding ‘exemption from refresher course for DPE / Lecturer Physical Education as also Lecturers of all categories of Govt.-aided colleges’.
One more opportunity is granted to the respondent to come present and also to provide the information sought, to the complainant within 15 days.
To come up on 18.02.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber.
Copies be sent to both the parties.
Sd/-
Chandigarh. Mrs. Ravi Singh
Date: 23.12.2009 State Information Commissioner

Amarjit Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Amarjit Singh,
S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh,
House No. 463, Dharampur,
Qadian-143516, Tehsil Batala,
District Gurdaspur. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. First Appellate Authority,
DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondents

AC No. 919 of 2009
ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Mr. Amarjit Singh, in person.
PIO-cum-Assistant Director (School Administration), Mr. Yashpal Manvi, in person.
-----
The Appellant vide his RTI request dated 09.11.2009, has sought certain information about holding of Departmental Promotion Committee meetings, certain promotions of Lecturers as Principals etc. etc. on seven points.

2. The point-wise information vide letter dated 14.12.2009, has been provided to the Appellant in my presence today. A copy of which is taken on record. In respect of two points concerning Science Supervisors, the Appellant if he so desires, may file a fresh application with the respective DEOs and collect the requisite information.

The case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 23, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Subhash Arora versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Prof. Subhash Arora,
E-367, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Hindu College, Amritsar.

2. First Appellate Authority,
DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondents

AC No. 926 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Prof. Subhash Arora, in person.
None for the Respondent.
-----
The Appellant vide his RTI application dated 24.07.2009, has sought information on three points regarding appointment of certain Teachers. The same was supplied by the Respondent Principal-cum-PIO on 22.08.2009.

2. The Appellant pointed out certain deficiencies in writing on 05.09.2009. The same were addressed by the Respondent PIO on 08.10.2009. Copies of this correspondence are on record.
Since the requisite information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

P.S. After the order was dictated in the open Court, Mr. Rakesh Mehra, Principal-cum-PIO, Hindu College, appeared and Mr. Kartar Chand, Superintendent, on the behalf of the DPI (C), Chandigarh. The order was read out to them.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Subhash Arora versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Prof. Subhash Arora,
E-367, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.

2. First Appellate Authority,
DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondents

AC No. 928 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Prof. Subhash Arora, in person.
None for the Respondent.
-----
The Appellant vide his RTI application dated 29.07.2009, has sought zerox copies of the salary bills of the staff members for the months of July, August and December, 2005. The Respondent supplied the requisite information on 27.08.2009.

2. In response to the deficiencies pointed out by the Appellant, dated 05.09.2009, the Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar, has supplied the requisite information on 08.10.2009. Copies of this correspondence are on record.

The case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

P.S. After the order was dictated in the open Court Mr. R. T. Saini, Superintendent and Ms. Gurusharan Kaur, Sr. Asstt., on the behalf of the DPI, Colleges appeared. The order was read out to them.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Subhash Arora versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Prof. Subhash Arora,
E-367, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Hindu College, Amritsar.

2. First Appellate Authority,
DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondents

AC No. 936 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Prof. Subhash Arora, in person.
None for the Respondent.
-----
The Appellant vide his RTI application dated 24.07.2009, has sought proceedings of the Selection Committee for the selection of Principal of Hindu College, Amritsar on 11.07.2009. The requisite information as desired was supplied by the Respondent PIO to the Appellant on 22.08.2009.

2. In response to the deficiencies pointed out by the Appellant, dated 05.09.2009, the Respondent, has supplied the requisite information on 08.10.2009. Copies of this correspondence are on record

The case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

P.S. After the order was dictated in the open Court, Mr. Rakesh Mehra, Principal-cum-PIO, Hindu College, appeared and Mr. Kartar Chand, Superintendent, on the behalf of the DPI (C), Chandigarh. The order was read out to them.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Subhash Arora versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Prof. Subhash Arora,
E-367, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar. ……Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Hindu College, Amritsar.

2. First Appellate Authority,
DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondents

AC No. 937 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Appellant, Prof. Subhash Arora, in person.
None for the Respondent.
-----
The Appellant vide RTI request dated 24.07.2009, has demanded information on action taken report regarding AC No. 382/2008 dated 24.06.2009.
2. The Respondent PIO vide his letter, dated 22.08.2009, wrote back to the Appellant that the query is not clear, please elaborate the same.
3. The Appellant vide his letter dated 05.09.2009, again wrote to the Respondent and pointed out deficiencies.
4. The Respondent vide his letter dated 08.10.2009, removed these deficiencies. The copies of this correspondence are on record.
The case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

P.S. After the order was dictated in the open Court, Mr. Rakesh Mehra, Principal-cum-PIO, Hindu College, appeared and Mr. R. T. Saini, Superintendent and Ms. Gurusharan Kaur, Sr. Asstt., on the behalf of the DPI (C), Chandigarh. The order was read out to them.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 21, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Baljinder Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Baljinder Singh,
Lecturer Commerce,
Govt.College, Gurdaspur.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3011 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Arjun Singh, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Respondent has brought the information today in the Commission which is taken on record. Respondent is directed to send the sought for information to the Complainant by registered post. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 17th December, 2009 State Information Commissione

RAJINDER KUMARVsSMT ANJALI BHAWRA and ORS

COCP No.2156 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.2156 of 2008 (O and M)

Date of decision: December 10, 2009.

Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
v.
Smt. Anjali Bhawra and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Shri Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

ORDER
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed CWP No.3195 of 2007 claiming a direction against the respondents to release the pending arrears of the petitioner pertaining to leave encashment, gratuity and provident fund, etc. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 22.5.2008.

The petitioner filed COCP No.1897 of 2008 before this Court for non-compliance of the aforesaid order. In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit of respondent No.3 was filed, the relevant paras of the aforesaid affidavit read as follows:-

3. That the answering respondent on 4.8.2006 had forwarded the case of the petitioner to DPI (Colleges), Punjab along with the service book of the petitioner for fixation of revised pay scale requesting return of service book to the college after verification.

This was done after accepting the revised pay scales of Laboratory staff as sanctioned by Punjab Government vide resolution No.19 dated 7.7.2006 of the Managing Committee of the college.

The DPI (Colleges) took no steps thereafter nor informed the College.

4. That the College has paid a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- to the petitioner towards Provident Fund and gratuity. On reexamining its record it has the college has now found that inadvertently by clerical error of its account department as sum of Rs.14,665.05 remains to be paid and the answering respondent undertakes to furnish this balance amount on 28.8.2009 to the petitioner at the hearing. The true amounts are Rs.1,90,577.05 towards PF and a sum of Rs.1,76,085/- towards Gratuity. The error is bona fide but regretted.

5. That claim for Leave Encashment is misplaced since the petitioner had utilized his earned leave and that is why nothing is due in this regard.

A cheque of Rs.14,666/- drawn in the name of the petitioner purporting to be the balance amount of provident fund and gratuity was also handed over by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentmanagement.

Shri M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, also stated that the Government vide its letter dated 27.8.2009 had sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,50,694/- as grant-in-aid for further payment to the petitioner in respect of his arrears of salary on account of revision of pay scales and the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent-management of the College within one month. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management further stated that on receipt of the aforesaid amount of grantin- aid from respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be paid the total arrears on account of revision of pay within two weeks thereafter. In view of the
aforesaid facts, the aforesaid contempt petition was disposed of.

The petitioner further filed COCP no.2007 of 2009 alleging therein that the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by this Court in COCP No.1897 of 2008 was not complied with. The aforesaid COCP was
disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 16.11.2009, as under:-

An affidavit of Mr. K.B.S. Sidhu, Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Punjab, Chandigarh has been filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. In the aforesaid affidavit, it has been mentioned that compliance of the orders dated 28.8.2009 passed by this Court in COCP No.1897 of 2008 has been made. It has been further submitted that an unconditional apology has also been tendered for the delay in making the payment.

In view of the aforesaid facts, submitted in the reply, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition.

Rule discharged.

The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents have paid only a sum of Rs.1,16,938/- and rest of the amount of Rs.1,33,756/- has not been paid to him.

Be that as it may, the order dated 16.11.2009 was passed by this Court in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner noticing the fact that the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by this Court has been complied with. No objection was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner when the aforesaid order dated 16.11.2009 was passed. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to take cognizance of this petition.

However, if the petitioner has not been made the full payment of Rs.2,50,694/- by respondents No.3 and 4, as alleged in this contempt petition, he shall be at liberty to approach the aforesaid respondents in this regard and if any such representation is made, the same shall be decided by the aforesaid respondents in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of such a representation.

[ Rakesh Kumar Garg ]
Judge

Baljinder Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Baljinder Singh,
Lecturer Commerce,
Govt.College, Gurdaspur.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3011 of 2009

Present:
(i)Sh. Baljinder Singh, the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Complainant

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant states that he sought information vide his application dated 13.04.2009 but no specific information has been provided by the Respondent. Respondent is directed to ensure that sought for information is provided to the Complainant before the next date of hearing

3. Adjourned to 17.12.09 (2.00 PM) for further proceeding. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 17th November, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Jasmeet Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Jasmeet Kaur, Principal,
D/o Sh. Shashi Nayyar,
S.R. Govt. College (E),
Amritsar. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 2846 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
Representative, Ms. Raksha Devi, Sr. Asstt., for the Respondent.
-----
The Complainant vide her RTI application dated 18.06.2009, had sought copies of her annual confidential report for the year 2002-2008. The representative of the Respondent today submits a copy of the information sent to the Complainant on 12.08.2009 with a forwarding letter dated 16.11.2009. Nothing contrary has been heard from the Complainant.

Therefore, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, November 16, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Ranbir Singh, S.O., DPI(Colleges) on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Appellant states that he filed two applications for information dated 28.04.09 and 04.06.09. Respondent has provided information to the Appellant today in the Commission regarding application dated 28.04.09. Appellant is advised to go through the same and point out the deficiencies, if any, to the Respondent before the next date of hearing.

3. Regarding application dated 04.06.09, Respondent states that he is not aware about this application. Respondent further states that this information is to be provided by Establishment branch 1 & 2. PIO, O/o DPI is directed to ensure that sought for information relating to the application of the Complainant dated 04.06.09 is provided before the next date of hearing. This is the last opportunity given to the PIO failing which action under Section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated. Copy of the application for information is again given to the Respondent today in the Commission.

4. Adjourned to 10.12.09 (at 02.00 PM) for further proceeding. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 12th November, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Shri Jaskam Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Jaskam Singh, Ward No.16, Mohalla Radharka,
Mansa-151505.
__________ Complainant
Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh. ________________ Respondent

CC No. 2531 of 2009

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Shri Jasbir Singh, Deputy Director (Colleges) alongwith Mrs. Saroj, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

Necessary information regarding reservation policy has been provided to the complainant. As regards information about the three remaining points which are in the form of interrogation, it cannot be supplied to him. The department cannot be asked to give information to the interrogatory questions.

2. In view of the above, case stands disposed of.

(R.K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner.
Dated: 6.11.2009

Dr Rajinder Kumar Singla versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla,
C/o Mr Jatinder Moudgil,
E-1/12, Punjab University,
Chandigarh-160014. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, SCO No.66-67, Sector: 17-D,
Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No.1361 of 2009

ORDER

Present:-
Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Complainant in person.
Shri Darshan Kumar, Senior Assistant(M.No.98148-60550), on behalf of Respondent.

Information has been provided to the Complainant as per the directions given in the earlier order dated 2.9.2009. The Complainant is satisfied.
Therefore, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 30.10.2009 State Information Commissioner.

Shri HItender Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri HItender Jain c/o Resurgence India,
903, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
SCO No.66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017. _________ Respondent

CC No. 1303 of 2009

Present:-
Shri Shri Hitender Jain complainant in person
Dr. (Mrs) Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director alongwith Shri Madan Lal, Superintendent, Mr. Ram Tirath Saini, Superintendent (Grant-II Branch), Mrs. Maninder Kaur, Senior Assistant and Smt. Gursharan Kaur, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

The information asked for by the complainant in regard to different colleges has been provided to him. He has pointed out certain discrepancies in respect of eight of the Government colleges a copy of which has been handed over to Mrs. Maninder Kaur Dhillon, Deputy Director. She will sort out the deficiencies pointed out by the complainant and provide the information as early as possible.

2. The information provided to the complainant about private colleges may be gone through by him and deficiencies, if any, reported within three weeks from today.

3. Case stands adjourned to 17.11.2009.


(R.K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner.
Dated: 22.10.2009

Shri HItender Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri HItender Jain c/o Resurgence India,
903, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
SCO No.66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017. _________ Respondent

CC No. 1303 of 2009

Present:-
Shri Shri Hitender Jain complainant in person

Dr. (Mrs) Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director ( C & P.) alongwith Shri Madan Lal, Superintendent-cum-APIO, Mrs. Maninder Kaur, Senior Assistant, Avtar Singh, Senior Assistant and Mr. Ram Tirath Saini, Superintendent (Grant-II Branch) on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

In pursuance of the order dated 24.8.2009, asked for information has been collected and supplied to the Complainant who may go through the same and point out deficiency, if any.

2. Case stands adjourned to 22.10.2009 at 11.00 AM

(R.K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner.
Dated: 16.10.2009

Vijay Kumar Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
151, Parkash Avenue,
Kapurthala-144601.
…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

AC No. 664 of 2009

Present:
Nemo for the parties.

ORDER

2. Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent is present. One more opportunity is granted to both the parties.

3. Adjourned to 12.11.09 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 16th October, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Mrs Harbans Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Mrs. Harbans Kaur,
Hostal Superintendent (Retd),
C/o Dr Bhatia, Bhatia Hospital,
22-Circular Road, Amritsar- 147 001. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO No.66-67, Sector: 17-D, Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No.2127 of 2009

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Shri S.K.Modi, Assistant Director-cum-APIO, on behalf of Respondent.

The Complainant filed a complaint on 28.07.2009 that his original application dated 8.9.2009 has not been attended to.
The information sought by her is regarding: “Arrear bills & missing credits of GPF 01.01.1978, arrears & salary & copies of A/Roll-where received the arrears. Arrears of some full pays & half pay due against Director Science & Research College Jagraon from 13.5.1081 to 8.11.1983.”
The Respondent states that information has been sent to the Complainant at the address given in the application, but the envelope containing the information has been received back, written on the envelope that she “left premises without further address”. The Complainant has not made any correspondence either with the Respondent or with the Commission. It seems she is not interested in pursuing her case. Complainant should collect the
information from the Respondent personally. The Complaint is accordingly disposed of and closed.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 08.10.2009 State Information Commissioner.

Jaswant Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Jaswant Singh,
S/o Ranjit Singh, House No. 25,
Doordarshan Enclave, Phase-II,
(Near Wadala Chowk),
Jalandhar. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 1707 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
Representative, Mr. Kartar Chand, for the Respondent.
-----
The Complainant vide his RTI request dated 26.02.2009, has sought information as to financial burden the Government of Punjab would have to bear if UGC directions regarding appointment of Director Physical Education under Career Advancement Scheme are to be implemented in the private aided colleges.

2. In response to this, the Respondent had informed the Complainant on 03.08.2009 that there are 136 aided colleges and had supplied the information in respect of 103 colleges. Today, he submits the forwarding letter, dated 30.09.2009, wherein, complete information, he says, is mentioned and would be sent to the Complainant. Regarding total finanical burden on the state, the letter says it would amount to Rs. 95,76,413/-.

3. The Respondent is directed to send this reply within a week to the Complainant with a compliance report to the Commission.

The case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, September 30, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Sh Sumesh Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Sh. Sumesh Kumar,
# 2, PWD Colony,
Near Bus Stand, Ropar. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO No.66-67, Sector: 17-D, Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No.1633 of 2009
ORDER

Present:-
Shri Sumesh Kumar, Complainant in person and Shri Suraj Mal Bhatia, Advocate for Complainant.
Shri Nachhatar Singh, APIO-cum-Superintendent on behalf of Respondent.

In the earlier order dated 20.8.2009, as none on behalf of the Respondent was present, one more opportunity was granted to the Respondent to provide the remaining information (copy of the judgement), otherwise action under RTI Act, 2005 will be initiated against the PIO/Respondent.
All information has been provided to the Complainant except pending information, i.e. concurrence of the Finance Department, Punjab. A letter has been brought by the Complainant, which states that the file containing advice issued vide I.D.No:1/2/92-FP1/1277, dated 27.4.1993 could not be traced from the old records despite best efforts. It is regretted that the copy of it could not be supplied. As regards obtaining a copy of Judgement rendered in CWP No: 10055 of 1991, he is advised to obtain the same from the office of Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Complainant is advised to put in a fresh application with the Finance Department, he is satisfied. Therefore, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 24.09.2009 State Information Comm

Gagandeep Singh Clerk versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Clerk,
O/o DPI College, Pb,
SCO 66-67,
Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. --------Complainant
Vs.
PIO/O Director Public Instructions (S),
SCO 95-97, Sector 17,
Chandigarh ---------Respondent.
CC No- 405-2008

Present:
Sh. Gagandeep Singh, complainant in person.
Sh. Manjeet Singh, PIO-cum-Registrar, Education Deptt.,Punjab.

Order:

On the last date of hearing, the PIO had reported that the file had been reconstructed to the extent possible and supplied to the Commission. The PIO had brought a set of information for the complaint also, but since he was not present, the PIO was asked to send it through registered post to him and the case was adjourned for today to give the Complainant a chance to make his submission, if any.

2. Today, the complainant is present and states that the file which is required by him concerns his termination from service during the probation period, for an offence which he stated had never been committed by him, and where the Court had acquitted him on the evidence of the prosecutrise absolving him. He stated that other two persons had been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. One of them was in Punjab Govt. service (in Education Department) had been able to get full benefits of service, including for the period of arrest and trial etc. However his file is not available which is creating complications for him for the counting of his service of -probation period for his seniority and all matters concerning his termination/period of service on probation before his acquittal and re-employment.
CC No- 405-2008
-2-
3. It is observed that the Registrar with great efforts has been able to reconstruct part file (correspondence only) concerning this case and states that he has not been able to locate the noting portion despite his best efforts. The complainant insists that noting portion is also very important for him as it would show that internal working and the level at which the decision was taken for termination etc. However, the orders are self speaking and themselves provide the basis and the signatures of the Competent Authority.

4. Shri Gagandeep Singh should now, on the basis of the papers he has been able to get under the RTI Act, approach the Competent Authority in the Executive or the Civil Courts for the redressal of his perceived grievances if he wishes, and is so advised. He may bring out the implication of the non production of the noting and his apprehensions regarding the damage to his case due to the absence of the same and the said authority can draw adverse inference against the authorities, if he is able to make out his case.
With these observations the case is hereby disposed of.


-Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
10.09.2008

Mukesh Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal,
# 1073, Old Lakar Mandi,
Near Aggarwal Nursing Home,
Sultanwind Gate, Amritsar-143001.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI (Colleges) Pb,
Chandigarh

………………………………..Respondent


CC No. 1936 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jasbir Singh, Deputy Director Colleges, on behalf of the Respondent
ORDER

2. Respondent states that he has sought clarification from the Complainant but no clarification has been provided by the Complainant. Complainant is absent. He was absent on the last date of hearing also. Dismissed for non prosecution. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 10th Sept. 2009

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
# 56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Darshan Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

2. Complainant states that he has received the sought for information and is satisfied. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 8th Sept. 2009

DAV COLLEGE Vs KBS SIDHU IAS AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1629 of 2009(O and M)

Date of decision: 7.9.2009

DAV College ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
KBS Sidhu, IAS and others ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.21224-CII of 2009
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

COCP No.1629 of 2009
The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that despite the directions issued by this Court to release the grant-in-aid due to the petitioner within a period of four months vide order dated 21.4.2009 passed in CWP No.5942 of 2009, the respondents have failed to make the aforesaid payment.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copy of the petition has been supplied to him.

In COCP No.1224 of 2009, titled Dalip Kumar v. D.K. Goyal, EO, which was decided on 20.7.2009, this Court was assured by the State of Punjab that the directions of this Court shall be complied with in letter and spirit and the undisputed amounts payable to the petitioners wherever directions have been issued, shall be made.

At this stage, without going into the merits of the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the aforesaid assurance given by the State of Punjab, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the amount of grant in aid which is not in dispute, to the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE

Dr Rajinder Kumar Singla versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla,
C/o Mr Jatinder Moudgil,
E-1/12, Punjab University,
Chandigarh-160014. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Punjab, SCO No.66-67, Sector: 17-D,
Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No.1361 of 2009

ORDER

Present:-
Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Complainant in person.
Shri Sunil Dutt, Superintendent-cum-APIO, on behalf of Respondent.


The Complainant filed a complaint on 27.5.2009 that his original application dated 6.4.2009 has not been attended to.
The information sought by him is regarding “Certified copies of documents related to the appointment of substantive posts of lecturers/ recruitment process for lecturers and Lecturers in the private aided colleges of Punjab.”
Part information has been provided to the Complainant in the presence of the Court today. As regards paras No.3 and 4 are concerned, College-wise information regarding private Colleges of Punjab is being collected since the record of private aided Colleges is with the Managing Committees or with Principals of the Colleges and it will take one month to collect the whole information. Information of 56 Colleges is provided to the Complainant apart from the rest of the information. The Respondent ensures that the remaining information about 80 Colleges will be provided in one month.

To come up on 30.10.2009 at 12:00 Noon in the Chamber.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 02.09.2009 State Information Commissioner.

RAJINDER KUMAR Vs SMT ANJALI BHAWRA and ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1897 of 2008 (O and M)

Date of decision: August 28, 2009.

Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
v.
Smt. Anjali Bhawra and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Shri Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Rajiv Narain Raina, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

ORDER
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):

CM No.20145-CII of 2009
Civil Misc. application is allowed subject to just exceptions.

COCP No.1897 of 2008
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed CWP No.3195 of 2007 claiming a direction against the respondents to release the pending arrears of the petitioner pertaining to leave encashment, gratuity and provident fund, etc. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 22.5.2008.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging the violation of the aforesaid order stating that his claim has not been settled as per the aforesaid judgment.

In reply to the show cause notice issued by this Court, an affidavit of respondent No.3 has been filed wherein it has been submitted as
under:-

3. That the answering respondent on 4.8.2006 had forwarded the case of the petitioner to DPI (Colleges), Punjab along with the service book of the petitioner for fixation of revised pay scale requesting return of service book to the college after verification. This was done after accepting the revised pay scales of Laboratory staff as sanctioned by Punjab Government vide resolution No.19 dated 7.7.2006 of the Managing Committee of the college.

The DPI (Colleges) took no steps thereafter nor informed the College.

4. That the College has paid a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- to the petitioner towards Provident Fund and gratuity. On reexamining its record it has the college has now found that inadvertently by clerical error of its account department as sum of Rs.14,665.05 remains to be paid and the answering respondent undertakes to furnish this balance amount on 28.8.2009 to the petitioner at the hearing. The true amounts are Rs.1,90,577.05 towards PF and a sum of Rs.1,76,085/-
towards Gratuity. The error is bona fide but regretted.

5. That claim for Leave Encashment is misplaced since the petitioner had utilized his earned leave and that is why nothing is due in this regard.

Shri Raina, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Management has also handed over a cheque of Rs.14,666/- drawn in the name of the petitioner purporting to be the balance amount of Provident Fund and gratuity and has stated that the claim with regard to the gratuity and provident fund of the petitioner stands satisfied.

Shri M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has stated that the government vide its letter dated 27.8.2009 has sanctioned an
amount of Rs.2,50,694/- as 95% grant-in-aid for further payment to the petitioner in respect of his arrears of salary on account of revision of pay scales. Shri Berry has further submitted that the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent-College within one month from today.

Shri Raina has further stated that on receipt of the aforesaid amount of grant-in-aid from respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be paid the total arrears on account of revision of pay within two weeks thereafter.

In view of the aforesaid facts that the grievance of the petitioner has been substantially redressed, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition.

Rule discharged.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation with regard to miscalculations of arrears, if any. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order within two months from the date of receipt thereof.

It is needless to say that if arrears are found due to the petitioner, the same shall be paid to him within one month from the of such order and in case the aforesaid representation is rejected, the order shall be communicated to him.

[ Rakesh Kumar Garg ]
Judge

Giano versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Smt. Giano,
W/o Sh. Jagir Ram,
Ex Water Women (Peon),
S.D College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
SD, College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.

(2) Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1769 of 2009

Present:
(i) Smt. Giano, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Parkash, Sutpd, O/o S.D.College and Sh. S.L.Bansal, Section Officer, O/o DPI Colleges, Pb on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

2. Argument is heard. Judgment is reserved.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 27th August, 09

Ajinder Kaur Sodhi versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Ajinder Kaur Sodhi,
66, Vidaya Nagar,
Opp. Punjabi University,
Patiala.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges) Pb,
Chandigarh. .
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 939 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Jasjeet Singh, Father-in-Law of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Yogeshver Singh, Clerk on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

2. Respondent has provided the sought for information to the Complainant today in the Commission. Respondent has filed the reply of show cause notice issued to him. Keeping in view all the facts mentioned in the reply the show cause notice is hereby is dropped. No further action is required.

3 Disposed of . Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 26th August, 09

Shri HItender Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri HItender Jain c/o Resurgence India,
903, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
SCO No.66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017. _________ Respondent

CC No. 1303 of 2009

Present:-
Shri Shri Hitender Jain complainant in person
Dr. (Mrs) Maninder Dhillon, Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh alongwith Shri Sunil Dutt, Superintendent-cum-APIO, Mr. Jasbir Singh, Deputy Director (Colleges)-cum-APIO and Mr. Ram Tirath Saini, Superintendent (Grant-II Branch) on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

Information supplied by the colleges is not only incomplete but also wrong. In fact, the complainant has pointed out various deficiencies in the information supplied by the colleges. A copy of deficiencies pointed out by the complainant has been handed over to Dr. (Mrs.) Dhillon, Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. She agreed that asked for information will be collected from the colleges and supplied to the complainant within six weeks from today with a copy to the Commission.

2. Case stands adjourned to 16.10.2009.

(R.K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner.
August 24, 2009

Sh Sumesh Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

Sh. Sumesh Kumar,
# 2, PWD Colony,
Near Bus Stand, Ropar. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO No.66-67, Sector: 17-D, Chandigarh. ---Respondent

C.C. No.1633 of 2009

ORDER

Present:-
Shri Suresh Kumar, Complainant in person.
None on behalf of Respondent.

The Complainant filed a complaint on 18.6.2009 that his original application dated 14.11.2008 has not been attended to.
The information sought by him is regarding “Attested copies of Civil Writ Petition, copies of the Judgments and letter No.nzHftHgZHBzL1$2$92 ftHgq'-1$1277, dated 14.4.93.” Vide letter No.5003-n(3)-7$22$2008, fwsh 29H12H2008, the Complainant received 34 pages out of 44 pages and the rest 10 pages have not been supplied. He has requested that the remaining 10 pages may be provided. According to the Complainant, copy of the judgment is still pending, even though it is written in the covering letter that it is being sent with the information.

As none on behalf of the Respondent is present, one more opportunity is granted to the Respondent to provide the remaining information, otherwise action under RTI Act, 2005 will be initiated against the PIO/Respondent.
To come up on 24.09.2009 at 12:00 Noon in the Chamber.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 20.08.2009 State Information Commissioner

KHALSA COLLEGE Vs KBS SIDHU IAS and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1503 of 2009(O and M)

Date of decision: 20.8.2009

Khalsa College ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
KBS Sidhu, IAS and others ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:-
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.19383-CII of 2009
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

COCP No.1503 of 2009
The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that despite the directions issued by this Court to release the grant-in-aid due to the
petitioner within a period of three months vide order dated 31.3.2009, in CWP No.5141 of 2009, respondents have failed to make the aforesaid payment.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copy of the petition has been supplied to him.

In COCP No.1224 of 2009, titled Dalip Kumar v. D.K. Goyal, EO, which was decided on 20.7.2009, this Court was assured by the State of Punjab that the directions of this Court shall be complied in letter and spirit and the undisputed amounts payable to the petitioner wherever directions have been issued, shall be made.

At this stage, without going into the merits of the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the aforesaid assurance given by the State of Punjab, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the undisputed amount of grant-in-aid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties on payment of usual charges.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE

SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs MRS ANJALI BHAMRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.O.C.P.No.2104 of 2008 (O and M)

Date of Decision:-19.8.2009

Sukhdev Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Mrs.Anjali Bhamra and others ...Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr.GP Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):
Affidavit of Maninder Dhillon, Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab, Chandigarh has been filed and the same is taken on record, wherein it is stated that the amount of Rs.5,82,500/- will be disbursed to the college as soon as it is received from the Treasury Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh.

In view of the aforesaid reply filed by the respondents, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not wish to press this petition.

Dismissed as not pressed.

Rule discharged.

(Rakesh Kumar Garg)
Judge

Mukesh Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal,
# 1073, Old Lakar Mandi,
Near Aggarwal Nursing Home,
Sultanwind Gate, Amritsar-143001.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI (Colleges) Pb,
Chandigarh

………………………………..Respondent


CC No. 1936 of 2009

Present:
Nemo for the parties

ORDER

Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent is present. One more opportunity is granted to both the parties.
2. Adjourned to 10.09.09 (at 02.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 18th August, 09

Ravi Bhushan Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATIONCOMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Er. Ravi Bhushan Verma,
Friends Colony, Street-‘A’,
Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road,
Pathankot-145001.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3104 of 2008

Present
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Smt. Anjali, Sr. Assistant,O/o DPI, Colleges, Smt. Karan Kaur, Steno, O/o Govt. College, Nabha, Sh. Narinder Singh, Junior Assistant O/o Govt. College, Hoshiarpur & Sh. Iqbal Singh, Clerk O/o Govt. College, Tanda

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that sought for information has been provided to the Complainant except for Govt. College, Hoshiarpur. Respondent further states that sought for information will be provided to the Complainant within two days. PIO is directed to provide the remaining information within one week to the Complainant. Complainant is absent. He was absent on the last date of hearing also. He has not bothered to inform the Commission about his absence. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 18th August, 09

KHALSA COLLEGE SOCIETY-GOVERNING COUNCIL Vs KANWARJIT SINGH DIRECTOR OF PUNJAB INSTRUCTIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.O.C.P.No.1598 of 2008 (O and M)

Date of Decision:-11.8.2009

Khalsa College Society/Governing Council ...Petitioner
Versus
Kanwarjit Singh, Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh.
...Respondents

CORAM:
HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr.S.C.Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):
CM No.19580-CII of 2008
Application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

COCP No.1598 of 2008
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the respondent states that necessary sanction has been received for payment of Rs.5,64,315/- to be made as grant in aid to the petitioner. It has further been submitted by him that even the bill for release of this grant in aid has been sent to the Government Treasury.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Ms.Gursharan Kaur, Senior Assistant, Office of DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh, states that the payment shall be made to the petitioner within one month from today.

In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to proceed further with this petition.

Rule discharged.

(Rakesh Kumar Garg)
Judge

Shri HItender Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri HItender Jain c/o Resurgence India,
903, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
SCO No.66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017. _________ Respondent

CC No. 1303 of 2009

Present:-
Shri Hemant Goswami on behalf of Shri Hitender Jain complainant.
Shri Sunil Dutt, Superintendent on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

Inspite of clear instructions given about supplying complete information to the complainant, nothing seems to have done in collecting and supplying the information to the complainant. Mrs. (Dr.) Maninder Kaur Dhillon, Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh should appear in person before the Commission on the next date of hearing with complete information.

2. Case stands adjourned to 24.8.2009.

(R.K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner.
Dated: 3.8.2009

PROF VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA and OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.5366 of 2009

Date of Decision: July 28, 2009

Prof. Vijay Kumar Sharma and Others .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Another .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. Naresh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) wherein the petitioners have been transferred. The petitioners are regularly
appointed college lecturers. The posts have been reduced. The persons working on stop gap/ part time basis, have not been transferred.

Learned counsel for the respondents, while drawing attention of the Court towards affidavit filed by Mr. Roop Aulakh, Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, sworn on 29.5.2009, states that the order
of transfer of the petitioners has been reversed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no cause of action survives.

The petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Visit us www.Infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
# 56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Madan Lal, Suptd on behalf of the Respondent.
ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that he has received the sought for information on 20.07.09 and has requested that some more time be given to go through the same. Complainant is advised to go through the information and point out deficiencies, if any, to the Respondent.

3. Adjourned to 08.09.09 (2.30 PM) for further proceeding. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 24th July, 2009

Lalit Dhawan versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Visit us WWW. Infocommpunjab. Com.
Sh. Lalit Dhawan,
S/o Sh. Om Parkash Dhawan,
C/o Dhawan Medical Hall,
Red Light Chowk,

Near Bus Stand, Sangrur.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI, (Colleges),
Pb, Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1487 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Smt. Sumanlata, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that sought for information relating to their office has been provided to the Complainant. The information relating to part time lecturers is to be provided by University Grant Commission (UGC). He further states that Secretary UGC has been requested vide their letter dated 29.05.09 to provide sought for information. No further action is required.
3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 23rd July, 2009

MANAGING COMMITTEE GURU NANAK KHALSA COLLEGE ETC Vs MS ANJALI BHAWRA SECRETARY ETC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1404 of 2008(O and M)

Date of decision: 10.7.2009

Managing Committee Guru Nanak Khalsa College etc. ......Petitioner
Versus
Ms Anjali Bhawra Secretary etc. .......Respondents

CORAM:-
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the respondents.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.17280-CII of 2008
CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

COCP No.1404 of 2008
In response to the show cause notice, a short affidavit has been filed by Ms. Maninder Dhillon, Director of Public Instruction (College), Punjab, Chandigarh, stating therein that in compliance of the order dated
29.1.2008, payment of Rs.1,40,11,667 has been made to the petitioner College vide Bank draft No.273962 dated 10.3.2009 and the same has been received by the petitioner-College and thus, the order has been complied with.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the full amount to which the petitioner has been held entitled to, vide order dated 29.1.2009 passed in CWP No.16821 of 2006, has not been released to the petitioner.

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to further proceed in the contempt petition.

Rule is discharged.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation to the respondents with regard to payment of balance amount as per the claim and the same shall be decided by the respondents
within a period of two months and in case the claim of the petitioner is found genuine, the payment shall be released further within a period of two months. If the aforesaid representation of the petitioner is rejected, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE

Shri Navtej Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Navtej Singh
s/o Sh. Gurtej Singh,
29-C, Model Town, Patiala. Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Respondent

CC No. 918 /2009

Present:
None is present on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Respondent.

ORDER

1. On the last date of hearing on 18.6.2009, the Respondent assured the Commission that the requisite information will be supplied to the Complainant within a period of 15 days.
2. None is present on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Respondent and nothing has been heard from the Complainant, which shows that the Complainant has received the information and is satisfied.
3. Therefore, the case is disposed of.
4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Surinder Singh
State Information Commissioner

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Darbara Singh Kahlon
Dated: 06. 07. 2009 State Information Commissioner

Ajinder Kaur Sodhi versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Ajinder Kaur Sodhi,
66, Vidaya Nagar,
Opp. Punjabi University,
Patiala.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges) Pb,
Chandigarh. .
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 939 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Jagjit Singh, Father-in-law of the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant states no information has been provided to him in spite of directions of the Commission during the last hearing. Respondent is absent. He was absent on the last hearing also. It is observed that PIO has willfully denied the information to the Complainant.

3. In view of the foregoing, PIO is directed to show cause why action should not be taken against him for not attending the hearing inspite of order of the Commission. He should file a written reply in response to the show cause notice as to why the Complainant should not be compensated for the mental harassment suffered by him in getting the information. In addition to the written reply PIO is hereby given an opportunity u/s 20(1) proviso thereto for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty on the next date of hearing. He may take note that in case he does not file his written reply and does not avail himself of the opportunity of personal hearing on the date fixed, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say and the Commission shall proceed to take further proceedings against him ex parte.

4. Adjourned to 20.08.09 (at 2.00 PM) for further proceeding. Copies of the order be sent to the parties. Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 6th July, 2009

Shri HItender Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri HItender Jain c/o Resurgence India,
903, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
SCO No.66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017. ________________ Respondent

CC No. 1303 of 2009

Present:-
Shri Hitender Jain complainant in person.
Ms. Manjit Kaur Superintendent alongwith Ms. Paramjit Kaur, Senior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

The complainant states that the request made by him to the Directorate was returned to him in original with the instructions that details about collection of Red Cross funds may be obtained from the colleges concerned directly. On the other hand,. Ms. Manjit Kaur, Superintendent appearing on behalf of the respondent-department stated that as per her knowledge, the Directorate has not issued such instructions. It has been clarified that all Government colleges as well as Private colleges aided by Government Funds function as per the guidelines issued by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) and thus the Directorate is expected to collect the information from these colleges The Information so collected from the colleges concerned should be compiled in the proforma provided by the complainant and supplied to him within three weeks from today.

2. Case stands adjourned to 3.8.2009.

(R.K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner.
Dated: 3.7.2009

LS Gupta versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No.32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri. L.S.Gupta
Gupta Eye-Sight Testing Centre,
Opp. Old Bus Stand, Patel Nagar,
College Road, Barnala
…..Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions(E)
SCO 95-97, Sector 17-D
Chandigarh .....Respondent

MR No. 59/2009

In CC No- 443 of 2008

Your complaint dated 19.01.2009 to the Commission in respect of RTI application dated 28.02.2008 addressed to the DPI(E), Pb. has already been considered by the Commission in its hearings on 03.06.2008, 23.07.2008 and on 24.09.2008 and detailed orders have been passed thereon each time. You are informed that there is no provision of Review of the orders of the Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Moreover, no new fact or plea has been disclosed in your application dated 19.01.2009. It is not considered a fit case in which notice should be issued to the PIO. Your request dated 19.01.2009 is, therefore, rejected.
Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
01.07.2009

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No.1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal, the Complainant
(ii) Smt. Manjit Kaur, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that she has just joined on this seat and has requested for some more time to submit reply as directed by the Commission in the hearing dated 29.05.09. Keeping in view, the request of the Respondent one more opportunity is granted. Respondent is directed to ensure that sought for information is provided to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.
3. Adjourned to 24.07.09 (02.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 24th June, 2009

Navtej Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Navtej Singh
s/o Sh. Gurtej Sinh,
29-C, Model Town,
Patiala
….Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Respondent
CC No. 918 /2009

Present:
Shri Navtej Singh along with Sh. Mashwinder Singh, Advocate.
Shri Satish Kumar, Supdt., on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER


1. Sh. Navtej Singh filed complaint with the PIO office of DPI, Colleges Punjab, Chandigarh on 16.01.2009. After getting no response he filed complaint with the Commission on 09.04.2009 against dairy No. 5056. Accordingly, notice of hearing was sent to both the parties for today.

2. The respondent states that they have not received the application as well as notice sent by the Commission to attend the hearings for today. He assured the Commission that information related to the instant case will be supplied within a period of 15 days, the information will be supplied by 30.06.2009 and the case is adjourned for 06.07.2009 in the Chamber, SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Surinder Singh
State Information Commissioner



Place: Chandigarh Darbara Singh Kahlon
Dated: 18.06.2009 State Information Commissioner

Suman Bala versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Suman Bala,
W/o Sandeep Kumar,
Ward no. 12, Dr. Kashmiri Wali Gali,
Sardulgarh District Mansa 151507. …..Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
SCO No. 66-67, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 1025 of 2009
ORDER

Present: None for the Complainant.
Representative, Mr. Jasbir Singh, Deputy Director, for the Respondent.
----
The representative of the Respondent says that the necessary information was sent to the Complainant on 22.04.2009, through registered post. Nothing contrary has been heard.
The case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties.

(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner
Dated, June 12, 2009

Dr Harbhajan Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Dr. Harbhajan Kaur,
119, Civil Lines, Patiala. …..Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 655 of 2009
ORDER
Arguments in the instant case were heard on 15.05.2009 and order was reserved.
2. The case relates to a service matter containing 13 items. Initial request was filed on 06.12.2008 and on not receiving a response, the Complainant filed a complaint with the Commission on 12.03.2009. Attached, with the request for information was personal case of the Complainant.

3. During the hearing on 15.05.2009, the Complainant was asked to justify the public interest or activity involved in the information demanded She could not do so. On the other hand, she averred that it was a ‘personal case’ as her service stands affected and her “promotion sabotaged.” It is also mentioned in the one page annexure.

4. In view of the foregoing, it emerges that the information demanded relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, as defined in Section 8 (i) (j) of the RTI Act. Also, Section 2 (j) defines what is ‘right to information’: It is public-interest oriented and not to promote or sub-serve narrow, personal gains/ interests/considerations. Thus, any progress in this case will amount to misuse of the Right to Information Act and goes against the spirit of the Act in resolving personal issues.

5. Therefore, the request for information by the Complainant is rejected. Accordingly, the case is disposed of and closed.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner.
Dated, June 05, 2009.

Ravi Bhushan Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Er. Ravi Bhushan Verma,
Friends Colony, Street-‘A’,
Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road,
Pathankot-145001.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3104 of 2008

Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Nacchatar Singh, Suptd on behalf of the Respondent
ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that for item no. 1, 2 & 3 information has been sent to the Complainant. For item no. 4, 5 & 6 information is to be collected from various colleges. Respondent is directed to collect the information from the concerned colleges and provide it to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.
3. Adjourned to 18.08.09 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 4th June, 2009

Ajinder Kaur Sodhi versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Ajinder Kaur Sodhi,
66, Vidaya Nagar,
Opp. Punjabi University,
Patiala.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges) Pb,
Chandigarh. .
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 939 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Jagjit Singh, Father-in-law of the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that he filed application for information with the DPI(Colleges) Punjab on 05.03.09. PIO has not provided the information so far. PIO, O/o DPO (Colleges) is directed to provide the sought for information before the next date of hearing.
3. Adjoined to 06.07.09 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 4th June, 2009

Lakshman Swarup Gupta versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Lakshman Swarup Gupta,
# B-X-550, Patel Nagar,
College Road, Barnala-148101,
District Barnala. --------Appellant

Vs.

PIO, O/O DPI(Ele. Edu),
Sector 17,
Pb., Chd. --------Respondent
AC No- 546-2008

Present :
None for Appellant.
Sh. Swaran Singh, Assistant Director-cum-PIO in person.
Sh. Narinder Kumar, Assistant.

Order:

The PIO states that letter dated 12th November, 1992 has been located and provided to the Appellant through letter dated 08.04.2009. However, this answer is off the mark, since, questions no. I, II, III, IV and V of IIIof the RTI application concerned asks for information regarding implementation of these instructions. PIO asks for some more time which is granted.
Adjourned to 22.07.2009.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
01.06. 2009

Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar,
W/o Inderdeep Singh Jassar,
H.No.2, Ghuman Colony,
Bhupindra Road,
Patiala -147 004
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI(Colleges) Pb.,
Chandigarh
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3060 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Inderdeep Singh Jassar H/o Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar
(ii) Mr. Acchar Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that after checking the record , it has been found that the date of birth of Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia is 17.10.1948 and not 17.10.1945. This discrepancy has been noted and accordingly case is being sent for rectification to higher authorities. Moreover, the date of birth has also been got verified from the Punjab University. Complainant is satisfied with the information provided. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 29th May, 2009

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No.1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant sought copies of the noting vide which pay of the librarians working in the government and private colleges was fixed w.e.f. 01.11.66, 01.01.86 and 01.01.96. He also sought copy of the orders issued for fixation of pay librarians in private affiliated colleges. Respondent has asked to the Complainant to intimate the specific information required by him.

3. The Complainant states that the case for grant of grade of Rs. 300/600 of his wife was rejected by the DPI (colleges) Punjab in the light of the instructions of the Govt. of Punjab dated 21.2.69 since his wife was not M.A. on the date of appointment i.e. 16.07.1975. He states that revised instructions were issued on 01.12.83. These revised instructions are as under:-
“The President of India is please to revise the pay scales of librarians working in private Colleges carrying scale of pay of Rs.250/400, Rs.200/500 and Rs. 250/500 to Rs. 300/600 with effect from 01.11.96 without insisting upon the condition of educational qualifications and screening by the expert committee subject to the condition that arrear on account of the revision of pay scale will only be paid with effect from 01.08.78.”

4. Complainant wants to know that why the instructions dated 01.12.83 was not made applicable incase of his wife while giving her the grade of 300/600 w.e.f. 01.11.66 without insisting upon the condition of educational qualification. He also wants to inspect the record in this regard. Respondent is directed to allow the inspection of record to the Complainant and also provide him information as per record regarding approval/rejection of 300/600 grade to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 24.06.2009 (11.00 AM) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 29th May, 2009

Shri Sarabjit Singh Jaggi versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Sarabjit Singh Jaggi, 131,
Model Gram, Ludhiana. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
Chandigarh. ________________ Respondent

CC No. 777 of 2009

Present:-
Shri G.S. Sikka, Advocate on behalf of the complainant.
Shri Arjun Singh, Superintendent-cum-APIO for the respondent-department.

ORDER

Similar information is also sought in CC-777/2009. The present application is addressed to Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh while CC-748/2009 is addressed to the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Education. Out of the eight points, information on 5 points has been provided which related to the respondent-department i.e. DPI (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. Information about the remaining three points i.e. Sr. No.5, 6 and 8 relates to the Punjab Government. The Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Education while dealing with the issue in CC-748/2009 should ensure that information on the said points is also supplied. This file is clubbed with CC-748/2009. As far as the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh is concerned, necessary information stands supplied by it.

2. Case stands disposed of.


( R. K. Gupta)
May 15, 2009. State Information Commissioner

Ms Malwinder Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, 1st Floor Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri R.S. Arora, B-34/10863, New Patel Nagar,
Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana-141001. __________ Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. ________________ Respondent

CC No. 841 of 2009

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Shri Inder Pal Singh, Superintendent-cum-APIO for the respondent-department.

ORDER

The letter received from the commission is misplaced. Copy may be handed over to Shri Inder Pal Singh.

2. Case stands adjourned to 22.6.2009.

( R. K. Gupta)
May 15, 2009. State Information Commissioner

Dr Harbhajan Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Harbhajan Kaur,
119, Civil Lines, Patiala. …..Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 655 of 2009
ORDER
Present :
Dr.(Ms) Harbhajan Kaur, Complainant, in person.
Representative, Mr. Arjan Singh, Supdtt., for the Respondent.
----

Arguments heard. Order is reserved.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner.
Dated, May 15, 2009.

Dr Ajit Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Dr. Ajit Singh, (Retd) Lecturer,
Preet College, Gali No.4(Left),Heera Singh Nagar,
Kotkapura, Distt. Faridkot. Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (SE),
Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh. Respondent

CC No. 82 /2009

Present:
None is present on behalf of Complainant.
Shri Hardev Singh, Senior Assistant, on behalf of Respondent.

ORDER

1. The complainant on the last date of hearing has intimated that he is going abroad and he will not be able to attend the next date of hearing and the requisite information be sent at the address given in the application by registered post. The respondent states that the concerned file is not available in the office, however, they have managed to procure the copies of orders from the office of Circle Education Officer, Nabha. Accordingly, the information has been sent through registered post at the address given in the application. The case is disposed of.

2.. Since the information stands provided, the case is disposed of.

3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Surinder Singh
Dated: 14.05.2009 State Information Commissioner

Sh Bachan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.

Sh. Bachan Singh,
Chandigarh Road,
Opposite Kheti Bhawan,
Hoshiarpur. …… Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
Chandigarh. ….…… Respondent
CC '10 of 2009
ORDER

Present:
None on behalf of the Complainant or the Respondent.

1. Through his letter received on 3.5.2009, the complainant has intimated that he has received the requisite information and has requested that the case be closed.

2. Since the information stands provided, the case is disposed of and closed.

3. Copies be sent to both the parties.

Chandigarh ( P.K.Grover )
Dated: 11.05.2009. Lt. Gen. (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

Dr Ravi Arora versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Ravi Arora,
Sant Sahara Ayurvedic
Medical College, Mansa Road,
VPO-Kotshamir
District-Bhatinda.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions (Elementary)
Punjab, Chandigarh.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2913 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Ravi Arora, Complainant in person.
Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, APIO/Supdt. and Raminder Dogra, Sr. Asstt. on behalf of respondent.

Sh. Ravi Arora filed a complaint on 08.12.2008 that his original application dated 30.10.2008 has not been attended to.
Information sought by him is regarding “on what basis it is confirmed by your honour the experience certificate attached by candidates are genuine and bona fide on which basis marks of experience are assigned to candidate for the selection of teaching fellows.”
The respondent in the Court gives in writing that DEO’s signatures are needed to verify the eligibility certificate and the complainant is satisfied with this statement. The complainant is also advised that if he wants to challenge this statement, then he can go to the higher competent authority or in the Civil Court.
The case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 04.05.2009

Bubblepreet Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Bubblepreet Kaur, C/o Sh. Amarjit singh,
House No. 4825/4, Near Water Pump,
Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, PO Khalsa College,
District Amritsar. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (SE), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 105 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Representative, Mr. Gurucharan Singh, for the Complainant.
None for the Respondent.
----
The requisite information stands supplied to the satisfaction of the Complainant.
The case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner
Dated, May 04, 2009

Sh Bachan Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.
Visit us at: www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Bachan Singh,
Chandigarh Road,
Opposite Kheti Bhawan,
Hoshiarpur. …… Complainant
Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.,
Chandigarh. ….…… Respondent

CC '10 of 2009
ORDER

Present:
None on behalf of the Complainant or Respondent.

1. Neither the appellant nor the respondent is present. One more opportunity is given to the appellant to progress the case. Adjourned to 11.5.2009 at 11.00 AM.
2. Copies be sent to both the parties.

Chandigarh ( P.K.Grover )
Dated: 23.04.2009. Lt. Gen. (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

Ravi Bhushan Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Er. Ravi Bhushan Verma,
Friends Colony, Street-‘A’,
Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road,
Pathankot-145001.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3104 of 2008

Present: Nemo for the parties

ORDER

Complainant has informed the Commission that he has pointed out the deficiencies to the Respondent. Respondent is absent. He was absent on the last hearing also i.e. 10.03.09. Respondent was directed to file an affidavit as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 for not providing the information within prescribed time under the RTI Act 2005. No reply has been given by the Respondent in this regard. One more opportunity is granted to the Respondent to make good the deficiencies pointed out by the Complainant and also file the reply in response to the show cause notice issued to him.

3. Adjourned to 04.06.09 (11.00 AM) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 22nd, April, 2009

Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar,
W/o Inderdeep Singh Jassar,
H.No.2, Ghuman Colony,
Bhupindra Road,
Patiala -147 004
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI(Colleges) Pb.,
Chandigarh

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3060 of 2008

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Arjun Singh, Suptd on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that the date of birth of Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia as per university record is yet to be verified. He has requested for some more time to submit his reply. Complainant has submitted that he wants to know the date of birth given by Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia at the time of entering into the Govt. Service. He has also submitted copy of the seniority list prepared by the department in 1982 showing date of birth as 17.10.1945 against his name at seniority no. 750. He further states that Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia had retired from Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib as principal against an aided post on 31.10.2008 on the basis of date of birth as 17.10.1948.

3. Respondent states that Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia had taken pre-mature retirement and joined Mata Gujri College, Fetehgarh Sahib. Respondent further states that date of birth as per service book is not known as the page no. 1 & 2 of the service book of Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia having personal particulars are missing.

4. Complainant has asked for date of birth of Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia at the time of entering into Govt. service. Respondent has stated that Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia has taken pre mature retirement. While preparing the case of pre mature retirement, Respondent must have considered his retirement date on the basis of official documents. Respondent is directed to intimate the date of birth from any other record in the office to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.

5. Adjourned to 29.05.09 (12.00 noon) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 16th April, 2009

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No.1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Nachatar Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that all the record has been shown to the Complainant. Complainant states that he wants to inspect some more record. Respondent is directed to show him the record before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 29.05.09(12.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 16th April, 2009

Sh Kirpal Chand versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Kirpal Chand,
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal,
Vill. Bhagatpura Rabbwala,
P.O. Qadian, Teh. Batala,
Distt. Gurdaspur
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instruction (SE)
Punjab, Chandigarh.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2328 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Kirpal Chand, Complainant in person.
None on behalf of the Respondent.

At the last date of hearing on 02.02.2009 the PIO was directed to be personally present at the next date of hearing and to provide information to the objections raised by the complainant within 15 days. None was present on behalf of the respondent at the last hearing and similar is the case today. This clearly shows the defiant attitude towards the directions of the Commission. The conduct of the Respondent, to say the least, is contumacious. The failure to give information clearly stems from an attitude of defiance to the mandate of the statute. One more opportunity is granted to the respondent and if the respondent fails to appear at the next date of hearing and also furnish the information to Complainant, the further action will be taken against him. It is also pointed out at this stage that no information has been provided to the complainant till date and also none has appeared on behalf of the Respondent, therefore, a copy of this order is being sent to the Secretary School Education, Punjab, Chandigarh for further necessary action.
The next date of hearing is 20.7.2009 at 2:00 pm.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 13.04.2009

C.C.

Secretary School Education, Punjab, Chandigarh.

Shri Sandeep Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Sandeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Hem Raj,
Dr. Kashmiri Wali Gali,
W-12, Sardulgarh, District: Mansa-151507. Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o D. P. I. (Colleges, Punjab,
Sector:17, Chandigarh. Respondent

CC - 197 /2009

Present
Shri Sandeep Kumar, Complainant, in person.
Smt. Harleen Kaur Bedi, Assistant Director(Intec) and Ms. Maninder Kaur, Senior Assistant, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

1. In this case, the Complainant filed an application with the PIO on 07.10.2008 for seeking certain information. The Deputy Director(Colleges) supplied information to the Complainant vide Memo. No. 2210-12/138-08-College Education(1)/1863, dated 8.12.2008. Not satisfied with the information supplied to him, he filed a complaint dated nil with the
Commission, which was received in the Commission on 30.01.2009 against Diary No. 1165. Accordingly, Notice of Hearing was issued to both the parties and the case was fixed for today.
2. The Respondent states that the remaining information regarding three candidates has been supplied to the Complainant on 07.01.2009. The Complainant states that he has received the information and is satisfied. He pleads that since the information has been delayed for more than two months, action may be taken against the PIO as per RTI Act, 2005.

3. I am satisfied with the plea put forth by the Respondent in her defence with regard to the delay in supplying the information. Therefore, no penalty is ordered to be imposed upon the PIO. However, the PIO is directed to be more vigilant in future in dealing with the RTI applications so that the information could be supplied within stipulated period of 30 days.

4. Since the information stands provided, the case is disposed of.

5. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Surinder Singh
Dated: 09. 04. 2009 State Information Commissioner

Shri Rajiv Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Rajiv Sharma,
# 292, Kothey Bhim Sain,
Dinanagar-143531,
District: Gurdaspur. Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o D. P. I. Colleges, Punjab,
Sector:17, Chandigarh. Respondent

CC - 114 /2009

Present:
None is present on behalf of the Complainant.

Mrs. Nirmal Gupta, Joint Director, Shri Amarjot Singh, Senior Assistant, on behalf of D.P.I. Colleges, Punjab; Shri Rakesh Joshi, Office Superintendent, on behalf of Shanti Devi Arya Mahila College, Dinanagar and Shri R. S. Gill, Advocate & Shri Parveen Kumar, Accountant, on behalf of Swami Swatantranand Memorial College, Dinanagar.

ORDER

1. A fax message has been received from the Complainant intimating the Commission that he is not able to attend the proceedings today as he has been suffering from fever. He has further informed that incomplete information has been supplied to him. He has requested that the case may be adjourned to some other date.
2. Mrs. Nirmal Gupta, Joint Director, D.P.I. Colleges, Punjab, states that the application of the Complainant for seeking information had been transferred to respective colleges on 22.12.2008 for sending requisite information to the Complainant.

3. Ld. Counsel for Swami Swatantranand Memorial College, Dinanagar states that part information had been sent to the Complainant by registered post on 26.2.209 and the remaining information has been supplied on 30.3.2009 through Special Messenger. He pleads that since the information relating to Swami Swatantranand Memorial College, Dinanagar has been supplied to the Complainant, the case may be disposed of.

4. The Respondent on behalf of Shanti Devi Arya Mahila College, Dinanagar states that the information running into 82 sheets, including one sheet of covering letter, has been supplied to the Complainant by registered post on 21.2.2009.

5. The Respondents state that even though the information, demanded by the Complainant, is 30 years old, the same has been supplied to the Complainant. Besides, Utilisation Certificates for the last 10 years have also been supplied. They plead that since the information demanded is 30 years old, the case may be closed.
6. Accordingly, the case is disposed of.

7. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.


Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Surinder Singh
Dated: 31. 03. 2009 State Information Commissioner

Bubblepreet Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Bubblepreet Kaur, C/o Sh. Amarjit Singh,
House No. 4825/4, Near Water Pump,
Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, PO Khalsa College,
District Amritsar. …..Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (SE), Punjab, Chandigarh. ……Respondent

CC No. 105 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Representative, Mr. Gurucharan Singh, for the Complainant.
None for the Respondent.
-----
The representative of the Complainant who has produced the authority letter says that the information sought under the RTI Act pertains to father of the Complainant. He says no information has been received from the Respondent. The Respondent is directed to furnish the requisite information before the next date of hearing.

Announced in the hearing.

The case is adjourned to 04.05.2009 (Monday) at 2.00 PM.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh. (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 16, 2009 State Information Commissioner


P. S. After the order was dictated in the open Court, the representative of the Respondent, Ms. Manjit Kaur, Supdt., appeared and submits reply dated 16.03.2009, which is to be sent to the Complainant. A copy of the same is taken on record. On the face of it, the reply is incomplete and inadequate.

2. I direct the Respondent to give point-wise reply on all the 04 points mentioned in the original application under the RTI Act. The Respondent is directed to send this reply through registered post with a copy of the covering letter of the information to the Commission before the next date of hearing. The Respondent is also directed to attach the documents, if any, on record against each 04 points mentioned in the RTI request.

Chandigarh. (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, March 16, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Ravi Bhushan Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Er. Ravi Bhushan Verma,
Friends Colony, Street-‘A’,
Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road,
Pathankot-145001.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3104 of 2008

Present:
(i) Er. Ravi Bhushan Verma, the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states he has sought information vide his application dated 01.09.08 but incomplete information has been sent to him now vide letter dated 05.11.2008 which was received by him on 21.02.2009 by post which shows that information has been sent in the back date. Complainant is advised to go through the information and point out deficiencies, if any. Respondent is also directed to explain by filing an affidavit as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 for not providing the information within the prescribed time under the RTI Act.

3. Adjourned to 22.04.09 (12.00 noon) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 10th March, 2009

IQBAL SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

DATE OF DECISION: 6.3.2009

1.CWP No.451/2008
Manjit Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others …Respondents

2.CWP No.3077/2008
Ranjit Singh and Others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others …Respondents

3.CWP No.1804/2009
Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others …Respondents

CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

PRESENT:
Mr.ML Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.

Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

These petitions are taken up for notice of motion/admission as the common questions of law and facts are involved. The short controversy involved in these petitions is “whether a candidate possessing higher qualification than the one prescribed and advertised for appointment to the posts is eligible for such selection/appointment.

The posts of PTI teachers were advertised by the State Government.

The minimum qualifications prescribed for the posts in question are (1) Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or equivalent to it; (2)
Certificate of Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) of duration not less than two
years or equivalent to it. Some of the petitioners possess M.P.Ed. and some B.P.Ed qualifications which are admittedly higher than the minimum
prescribed qualification of C.P.Ed. This issue has been considered by two
separate Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court at different times and contradictory views have been expressed. A Division Bench comprising of
Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.S.Aggarwal and Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.S. Singhvi, as
their Lordships were at the relevant time, have expressed their view that the higher qualification than the minimum prescribed one does not disentitle a candidate from consideration for selection/appointment. In CWP No.5386 of 1997 titled as Samandeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 14.1.1998, the aforesaid Division Bench made following observations with regard to higher qualifications:-

....It is well know than there is nothing arbitrarily of unreasonable in the employer preferring a candidate with higher qualification for service. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency is permissible. See Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India [1968 (1) scr 185]; State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Tirloki Nath [1974(1) SLR 536]; Sujat Ali vs. Union of India [1975(3) SCC 76]; Roop Chand vs. D.D.A. [1989(1) Suppl. SCC 116]; V. Markandaya vs. State [1989(3) SCC 191] and Sanatan Ganda vs. Barhampur University [1990(3) SCC 23].

Indeed vice versa without valid reasons would not be true. The authorities had prescribed the minimum educational qualification and there was no valid ground to debar a person who possesses higher qualification.....

We need to add further except to express our anguish in the higher handed manner in which respondent no.3 dealt with the whole situation. Better qualified and selected candidates were deprived of the posts on flimsy ground particularly when they possess higher educational qualifications than the prescribed. It had not been explained to us as to how such strange situation was created. The action of the respondents is, therefore,
totally illegal and contrary to the advertisement with respect to the minimum qualification prescribed.

For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners since they already stood selected by the Selection Committee. No order as to costs.

Another recent Division Bench judgment dated 16.12.2008 passed in CWP No.19603 of 2006 (Harjinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others) by a Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar and Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina has been brought to my notice on the same
controversy. In this case, Hon'ble Division Bench formulated following
questions:-

Whether the petitioners who have obtained the qualification of B.P.Ed. could be equated for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructors for which qualification prescribed is C.P.Ed.?

While considering the respective contentions, the Hon'ble Division Bench noticed the sum and substance of the pleadings in paragraph 14 of the judgment which reads as under:-

14. The pleadings of the parties show three basic elements:

(a) The curriculum of C.P.Ed. is designed to impart physical training to the elementary level of students and the PTIs are teachers with the aforementioned qualification who are engaged to teach elementary level
of students. They are taught the subjects of Recreation and Child Psychology by adopting play way methods. On the other hand the qualification of B.P.Ed. is aimed at teaching the secondary students of 9th and 10th classes.

The nomenclature of both the posts is different. The first is known as Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) and the second are known as Physical Training Masters/Mistress.

Even their pay scales are different. The PTIs with C.P.Ed. qualification are paid the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8100 and they are to impart education to the elementary level, which is upto 8th class, whereas the pay scale of
Physical Training Masters/Mistress with B.P.Ed. qualification is Rs. 5480-8925/-.

(b) The second fundamental principle highlighted in the pleadings is that B.P.Ed. In any case is not higher qualification in the same line of course of C.P.Ed. because no exemption on account of C.P.Ed. qualification is given to a candidate who studied B.P.Ed. it is also not necessary that a candidate must have qualified C.P.Ed. to take admission in B.P.Ed.

(c) The State Government has been following the policy of imparting education at three levels of students and have been employing persons to impart physical education to students of each of the three different levels.

At every one of the level the nomenclature of the post, qualification and pay scales are different as has already been noticed above.

(d) There are different statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution which are applicable to different cadres for whom different
notifications have been prescribed. For example under Rule 5 read with Appendix B of the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 the post of lecturer physical education is shown at serial No 2(iii). The educational qualification prescribed is Master of Physical Education. The post of Physical Training Master figures in the appendix at 3(j).

According to the educational qualifications such a person is required to be a graduate from a recognised University with training in advance physical training course degree or diploma.

The Hon'ble Division Bench finally answered the questions referred to here-in-above in the following manner:-

20. As a sequel to the above discussion, the question posed above is answered in the negative and against the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed.

There is apparent divergence of opinion in the aforementioned two Division Bench judgments of this Court. I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration by a larger Bench in view of the mandate of Rule 30 (2) of Chapter 4 Part III, Volume 5 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The file be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to consider the aforesaid question.

Let a copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

Harnek Singh Komal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Harnek Singh Komal, s/O Sh. Kirpal Singh,
# 2, Ward No. 4, Street,
Vikas Public School, Malout.152107. --------Complainant
Vs.
PIO, O/O D.P.I.(Colleges), Punjab,
SCO No. 66-67, Sector 17-D,Chandigarh. -------- Respondent

CC No- 2519-2008.
Present:
None for the complainant.
Shri Nachhatar Singh Supdt. and Sh. Kartar Chand, Supdt. both on behalf of the PIO/DPI ( C ).

ORDER:
Shri Harnek Singh Komal vide his complaint dated 22.10.08 to the Commission stated that his application under RTI Act with due payment of fee made to the address of DPI ( C ) on 19.8.08 had not been attended to. Hence the complaint. A copy of the complaint was sent to the PIO, date of hearing fixed for today and both parties informed through registered notice dated 16.2.09.

2. Today, the representative of the PIO presented a copy of letter dated 21.10.08 vide which the information had already been supplied to the applicant. The date of complaint by Sh. Harnek Singh Komal to the Commission is 22.10.08 and the present letter giving the information asked for is dated 21.10.08 It is obvious that the letter has crossed. Even otherwise Sh. Harnek Singh Komal had due and adequate notice for today’s hearing who has chosen not to appear. It is clear that he has received the information and has nothing further to submit. With this, the case is hereby disposed of.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
03.03. 2009
(Ptk)

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No.1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Kartar Chand, Suptd. & Sh. Nachatar Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant has submitted the copy of letter of DPI (Colleges) fixing the pay of librarian. He further states that this confirms his contention that all the record is available with the DPI (Colleges) Pb.

3.Respondent states that he will trace the file and will inform the Complainant of the date to visit their office to personally inspect the record. Copy of the documents pointed out in the record will be given to the Complainant.

4. Adjourned to 16.04.09 (at 12.00 noon) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 27th Feb, 2009

Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur Jassar,
W/o Inderdeep Singh Jassar,
H.No.2, Ghuman Colony,
Bhupindra Road,
Patiala -147 004
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI(Colleges) Pb.,
Chandigarh
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3060 of 2008

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Arjun Singh, Suptd. & (ii) Dr. Santokh Singh Parmar, Principal on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER
Heard

2. Complainant has sought information about the date of birth of Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia, who was taken into Govt. service as a Lecturer in English, 1974 after taking over Kirti College, Nayal, Patran in 1974 by the Pb, Govt.

3. Respondent states that some of the pages of service book are missing, so his date of birth cannot be confirmed. However, as per Punjab University certificate submitted by Sh. Gurmohan Singh, the date of birth is 17.10.1948. Respondent is directed to get this date of birth verified from the University or from the original certificate of Sh. Gurmohan Singh Walia and information sought by the Complainant be provided to him before the next date of hearing.

4. Adjourned to 16.04.09 (at 12.00 noon) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 27th Feb, 2009

Sh Rajwant Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Rajwant Singh,
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh (Prof. Retd),
# 433-7, Civil Lines,
Gurdaspur-143521. -Appellant

Vs.

PIO, Director Public Instructions (SE),
Sector 17, Chandigarh. -Respondent.

AC No-502 -2008

Present: Sh. Rajwant Singh, Appellant in person.
Smt. Tarinder Kaur, APIO-cum-Superintendent for PIO.

Order:

With reference to application dated 16.08.2008 under RTI Act duly made to the DPI (SE), Punjab with requisite fee. The Appellant today states that he has received full information vide letter dated 10.10.2008. However, he states that PIO has cleverly given this date for supply of information but envelope clearly shows that it has been posted one month after only on 08.11.2008 which he received on 10.11.2008. He has shown me the envelope and I have seen for myself the stamp of 08.11.2008. The PIO explains that they had wanted to send the information by registered post but there were no funds and due to lack of funds they finally sent through ordinary post. She is warned to be careful in future and to give the information within stipulated period. With this, the case is hereby disposed of.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner

Sh Rajwant Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Rajwant Singh,
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh (Prof. Retd),
# 433/7, Civil Lines,
Gurdaspur-143521. ----Appellant

Vs.

PIO, O/O Director Public Instructions (SE),

Sector 17, Chandigarh. -----Respondent.

AC No-502 -2008
Present:
Sh. Rajwant Singh, Appellant in person.
Smt. Tarinder Kaur, APIO-cum-Superintendent for PIO.

Order:
With reference to application dated 16.08.2008 under RTI Act duly made to the DPI (SE), Punjab with requisite fee. The Appellant today states that he has received full information vide letter dated 10.10.2008. However, he states that PIO has cleverly given this date for supply of information but envelope clearly shows that it has been posted one month after only on 08.11.2008 which he received on 10.11.2008. He has shown me the envelope and I have seen for myself the stamp of 08.11.2008. The PIO explains that they had wanted to send the information by registered post but there were no funds and due to lack of funds they finally sent through ordinary post. She is warned to be careful in future and to give the information within stipulated period. With this, the case is hereby disposed of.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
24.02.2009
(LS)

Harjeet Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Harjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Jawsant Singh (Retd Teacher),
VPO-Muluka, Tehsil-Phul,
Distt- Bathinda.

…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (College) Pb,
S.C.O. 66-67, Sec:17/D,
CHD.

……………………………..Respondent

AC No. 526 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Harjeet Singh, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Baljit Inderjit Singh, Suptd-cum-APIO on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that sought for information has been sent to the Appellant vide their letter No.22/7-2008 dated 10.02.2009. Complainant admitted that he has received the information. He further states that action should be taken against the Respondent for not giving the information within time. Respondent is warned to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI applications.
3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 13th Feb, 2009

Sh RC Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh R.C.Verma,
# A-76, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. --------Appellant
Vs.
PIO, O/O, Director Public Instructions(c),
Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ____ Respondent.

AC No-382 -2008

Present: Sh. R.C.Verma, complainant in person.
Shri R.T,Saini, Supdt. On behalf of PIO/DPI(C).
Smt. Gursharan Kaur, Sr. Asstt. For the PIO/DPI(C).
Dr. Arun Mehra, PIO/Lecturer, Hindu College, Amritsar.
Shri V.P.Lumba, Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar.

ORDER:

On the last date of hearing on 16.12.08, this case was considered and detailed orders had been passed. The complainant has shown me copy of registered letter dated 29.1.09 sent by him to the Commission with copy to PIO/DPI(C) of even date and has shown me proof of registry also. This copy has not been received in the Commission office (office should locate it). In this letter he has pointed out the deficiencies in the information given point-wise. In reply the PIO has presented letter dated 9.2.2009 which is addressed to the DPI enclosing a 3 page letter in response to the deficiencies pointed out by the complainant.
2. I have gone through the list given by the complainant point-wise. In respect of point No. 1 about the grant of Rs. 5 lacs, I agree with Shri R.C.Verma the words contained in the letter of Hindu College, Amritsar dated 11.12.08 addressed by Principal, V.P.Lumba to the DPI(C), Punjab. Page 1 thereof in para 1 line 3 in the body of the note the words “during the tenure of Sh. R.C.Verma” need to be deleted, since it is not a part of the information but an insinuation. As such it be deleted.
AC No-382 -2008

3 After going through contention of the complainant contained in 2 (a) to (c) I do not agree `that the information was required to be given from 1998 onwards and hence is incomplete. It is correct that the over all period for which the information was required was stated to be 1998 onwards. However, in respect of Q.No. 2 the query was with specific reference to” details of entire course being run by the Hindu College during the Session 2007-08”. Therefore the information provided by the PIO is adequate and correctly given for that year only.
4. Answers to deficiencies No. 3 pointed out is also not correct, since it was stated that categorically and in writing by the PIO Shri Darbari Lal had given, Rs. 5 lacs as grant and not Rs. 25 lakhs. The Commission cannot go behind the assertion.
5. As for para 4, in respect of record of proceedings of the Governing Council, Hindu College Amritsar since 24.8.2005, it is seen that the PIO has repeated the assertions already made by him in para 4(1) of its earlier reply dated 11.12.08 and followed it up with a much more assertive statement claiming that the Hindu College Governing Council Amritsar is different from ‘Hindu College’ and thus is not a ‘public authority’ under the Act. I am afraid this assertion is not acceptable. The DPI ( C ) appears to have abandoned his responsibility in the matter together and expects the Commission to deal with the College on a ‘one to one’ basis. The DP ( C) must remember that he is the PIO in this case, and it is necessary for him to give his comments on any such assertion under the provisions of the RTI Act. (It is noted that the letter is addressed to DPI ( C). The DPI should send a person not below the rank of APIO who should be in a position to give his comments). Anyhow the college is very much a ‘Public authority’ and is regularly receiving grants from the Government/governmental sources which are being managed by the said governing council which has no separate existence. At this, the PIO/Principal withdrew the reply in respect of para 4 as provided to Sh. R.C.Verma. As a result the information regarding the Resolutions of the Governing Council asked for by
AC No-382 -2008 -3-
the complainant are hereby ordered to be provided to him without further delay. The reply provided under 4(1) of the letter dated 11.12.08 as well as the comments now given in para 4 have been withdrawn. (Contents of Para 4(iii)(b) have also been withdrawn, which was reply provided in CC-1208, and given in the reply to AC-382.08). As a result the information asked for by the applicant is to be given to him.
6. Point No. 5 has been given clearly and in writing in his letter. The complainant stated that the information given is not correct since he has produced as annexure photocopy of the receipts of amounts by the Secretary of the Governing Council. However, the Commission has no jurisdiction to go into the complaints regarding alleged embezzlements.
7. However, regarding point No. 6, the complainant has correctly pointed out that he had asked for information from 1998 onwards and information has been provided w.e.f. 2005. Hence incomplete information. Information regarding the remaining years should also be given.
8. With these directions/observations, the case is fixed for 22.4.2009 for compliance. The reply should be given through PIO/DPI(C).

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
10.02.2009
(Ptk)

Dr Jaskaran Singh Sidhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Jaskaran Singh Sidhu,
W.No. 16,
Mohalla Radharka,
Mansa-151505, Pb. ----Complainant
Vs.
PIO, O/O Director Public Instructions (Colleges)
SCP 66-67, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh. -----Respondent.

CC No-2303 -2008
Present:
None for Complainant.
Sh. Sunil Dutt, Superintendent for DPI(Colleges) for PIO.

Order:

Dr. Jaskaran Singh Sidhu vide his complaint dated 10.10.2008 made to the Commission stated that his application under RTI dated 01.09.2008 with due payment of fee made to the address of PIO/Director Public Instructions (Colleges) had not been attended to and no information had been provided to him. A copy of the complaint was sent to the concerned PIO and both parties informed to the date of hearing through registered post.
2. Today, none is present for the Complainant. The representative of the PIO states that full information asked for by the Complainant had been provided to him by registered letter dated 27.10.2008. A copy of letter dated 27.10.2008 (covering letter) giving point wise replies along with full annexures have been placed on record of the Commission.
3. Dr. Jaskaran Singh Sidhu had due and adequate notice of hearing to be held today through registered post. Since he has not come, it is presumed that he has received full information and he is satisfied with the same. The case is disposed of.
SD-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
03.02.2009
(LS)

Pritpal Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Pritpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,
# 42, New Model Town,
Ludhiana-141002.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI (Colleges) Pb,
Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2987 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Pritpal Singh, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Vijay Bhalla, Senior Assistant on behalf of the Respondent
ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that he has received the information but copy of the seniority list has not been provided to him. Respondent states that seniority list is still provisional and is likely to be finalized within 3-4 months and the copy of the same will be provided to the Complainant as soon as it is finalized. Respondent is directed to provide the copy of the seniority list to the Complainant as soon as it is finalized. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-ui
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 23rd January, 2009

RK Garg versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh.R.K.Garg,
# 66, St. No. 4, Shankar Nagar,
Fatehgarh Road, Hoshiarpur.
......Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI(Colleges) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.

.....Respondent.
CC No-1121-of 2008:
Present: Shri R.K,.Garg, complainant in person.
Sh. Kartar Singh, Supdt, O/O DPI©.for the PIO.
Sh. Darshan Verma, Sr. Asstt, O/O DPI(Colleges).

ORDER:

In compliance of order dated 26.8.07 and 8.10.08, Sh. Kartar Singh, Supdt, O/O DPI(C) on behalf of the PIO has already filed a letter dated 5.11.08 addressed to Sh. Garg with copy to the Commission giving the full information available with them on record along with a certificate from the Principal, DAV College, Hoshiarpur, Sh. Jarnail Singh stated that Sh. Garg has been supplied copies of the certificate of Refresher courses available on the record of the college. In addition to this, college record does not contain any other record concerning the Refresher course certificates. The PIO has also sent a set of photocopies for the record of the Commission. Shri Garg states that he is not satisfied and has filed another letter dated 26.12.08 in which he has pointed out certain deficiencies.

2. It is observed that subject of the RTI application is information, which could form the basis of the case against the authorities for withholding his senior scale from due date, and in which he alleges that with malafide intention some one had forged the certificate of a Refresher course attended by him whereas he had never presented the said certificate. (The controversy is about a certificate of a Refresher course attended from 23.6.2002 to 13.7.2002 which has
CC No-1121-of 2008 been allegedly forged to read 23.06.2000 to 13.07.2000 in order to make the Complainant eligible for senior scale from an earlier date). He stated that he never attended any Refresher course during those days, rather he attended a Refresher course from 23.6.2002 to 13.7.2002 and that is the certificate which he had presented at the relevant time. He states that the alleged certificate of 23.06.2000 to 13.07.2000 has been attested on 25.9.2002. The case, which has been forwarded on 11.12.01 from the Principal could not have been forwarded with a certificate attested on 25.9.2002.

3. However, I have seen the application made by Sh. R.K.Garg to the Principal for senior scale in which he writes, a photocopy of which is available at page 43 of the file of DPI(Colleges). Copy is taken on record which reads as under:-
“To
The Principal, DAV College, Hoshiarpur.
Sir,
Sub: For senior scale.

Reference to my application dated 11.5.2002. I am entitled for senior scale w.e.f. 27.7.98. Please find enclosed herewith photo copies of Matric, B.Sc, M.Sc., M.Phil refresher Course 20 Feb., to March 12, 1995 and 23.6.2000 to 13.7.2000 and copy of appointment and approval also enclosed herewith.
Please do needful.
Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,
R.K.Garg, Lect. in Physics.
Dt. 25.9.02.
Sh. Raj Kumar to do the needful.
Sd/-Jarnail Ssingh 26.9.2002” (emphasis provided)

4. It is clear that the photocopy of the certificate of Refresher course attended from 23.6.2000 to 13.7.2000 was annexure of the same as mentioned in the covering letter itself by Sh. R.K.Garg, Complainant in his own hand writing. Further, the certification (of 23.06.2000 to 13.07.2000) is also found to be attested on the same date as the date of his application i.e. 25.9.2002. Further
CC No-1121-of 2008 correspondence between the Principal and the Complainant is available on the DAV College file which makes it clear that Sh. R.K.Garg had approached the Commission to try and obfuscate issues.

5. The primary source of information is the DAV College and full information has already been received by him from that source. All available information with the DPI has also been provided. The certificate has also been given by the Principal stating that no further information is available with them. With this the case is hereby disposed of.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
14.01.2009
(ptk)

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent


CC No.1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Kartar chand, Suptd. & Sh. Nachatar Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that as agreed on the last hearing , Complainant has not provided the names of specific colleges from where this information is to be sought. Complainant states that he should be provided information from all the Govt. and Private Colleges as asked for in his application. Respondent is directed to get information from all the colleges regarding the pay fixations of librarian in government and private colleges as per UGC recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.86 to 01.01.96.

3. Adjourned to 27.02.09 (12.00 PM) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 7th January, 2009

Sh RC Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh R.C.Verma,
# A-76, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. --------Appellant
Vs.

PIO, O/O, Director Public Instructions(C),
Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ____ Respondent.

AC No-381 -2008 & CC-1208-2008

Present:
Sh. R.C.Verma, Complainant in person.
Mrs. Maninder Kaur, Deputy Director Colleges for PIO/DPI(Colleges), Pb.

Sh. R.T.Saini, APIO-cum-Superintendent Grants-II Branch from the APIO with Smt. Gursharan Kaur, Senior Assistant, dealing hand.

Order:
Mr. R.C.Verma retired Principal, in his capacity as President, Welfare Association of the Superannuated Employees of Aided Colleges (Regd.), has made a complaint dated 14.08.2008 to the State Information Commission that his application for information under Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 10.03.2008 made to the address of PIO/Department of Education, Punjab had not been attended to and no information had been supplied to him. Instead, the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education forwarded the application to the Director Public Instructions for disposal under intimation to him. The DPI, on his part, forwarded the same to the Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar on 10th April, 2008, who, till date, intentionally did not furnish the said information. Thereafter, the Complainant filed the First Appeal to the Appellate Authority on 19.06.2008 against non-supply of information. The Appellate Authority followed the same route and forwarded the said case to the DPI under intimation to the Appellant. The DPI (Colleges) further sent the copy of the Appeal to the PIO/Hindu College, Amritsar for disposal. The PIO/Hindu College has still not supplied the information. Hence the Second Appeal.

AC No-381 -2008 & CC-1208-2008

2. The information he had sought was :-
"1. Names of all employees retired from the service of Hindu College, Amritsar; entitled amount of retired employee and the exact amount paid. Name of all employees who had not been paid (full & final Amount) as retiral benefits after superannuation? Required by post."

A copy of the complaint was sent to the PIO, the date of hearing fixed for 16.12.2008 and both parties informed through registered post.

3. Today, both parties are present before me. The Deputy Director/PIO/DPI(Colleges) states that information has been supplied to the Appellant vide covering letter dated 11.12.2008 duly indexed and attested by the officiating Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar. This contains a statement of gratuity and provident fund paid to retired employees since 1996 under 95% deficit grant-in-aid scheme, as well as names of employees who have not been paid retrial benefits. Sh. R.C.Verma acknowledges that he has received the same but states that information has deliberately been given, based on wrong facts and is mis-leading and incomplete. He states that he has evidence that there are many persons, including himself, who have not been paid their full dues. He may address the Commission specifically on this subject with copy to the PIO. The PIO should make up the deficiency, if any, strictly in accordance with his original RTI application, in the same form as directed earlier by the Bench, under due receipt from the Complainant, and a copy of the information should be supplied for the record of the Commission at least ten days before the next date of hearing.

4. It is observed that the earlier application dated 08.03.2008 made by the Complainant to the same PIO which culminated in CC-1208 of 2008 has also been fixed for supply of information and the date has been fixed for tomorrow i.e. on 17.12.2008. I find that the subject is same and the information required is also similar and does not need a separate date for consideration. Both CC-1208 of 2008 and AC-381 of 2008, therefore, need to be taken up together on the next date of hearing.

AC No-381 -2008 & CC-1208-2008

5. The PIO has drawn my attention to another CC-1899 of 2008 titled R.C.Verma Vs. PIO/DPI(C), Punjab which Sh. R.C.Verma had requested should be taken up alongwith CC-1208 of 2008. He informed me that the date is fixed for 16.02.2008 before the Bench of Hon’ble SIC, Mrs. Ravi Singh. Sh. R.C.Verma has requested that the case being identical to CC-1208 of 2008 should also be taken up along with AC-381 of 2008. As such the said court may be requested to transfer CC-1899/2008 to this bench if there is no objection so that all these cases CC-1208/2008, CC-1899/2008 and AC-381/2008 are taken up for hearing together and duplication of effort by different benches is avoided. Copy of the notice dated 16.02.2008 issued by that court has been supplied.

6. It is further observed that under Section 3 of the Act, every citizen of India is entitled to seek information under RTI Act in his own right but not in the capacity of President, Secretary or representative etc. of any institution or organization. Information which is supplied to Sh. R.C.Verma should also be addressed, accordingly.

7. The representative of the PIO, Hindu College must carry with him the letter of authority from the PIO and also bring a copy of the letter vide which the PIO has been so designated for the College and put it on the record of the Commission.
Adjourned to 10.02.2009.

SD-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
16.12.2008

RC Verma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh R.C.Verma,
# A-76, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. --------Appellant
Vs.
PIO, O/O, Director Public Instructions(c),
Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. ____ Respondent.

AC No-382 -2008

Present:
Sh. R.C.Verma, Complainant in person.
Mrs. Maninder Kaur, Deputy Director Colleges for PIO/DPI(Colleges), Pb.
Sh. R.T.Saini, APIO-cum-Superintendent Grants-II Branch from the APIO with Smt. Gursharan Kaur, Senior Assistant, dealing hand.

Order:

Sh. R.C.Verma vide his complaint dated 14.08.2008 made to the Commission submitted that his application under RTI made to the PIO/Department of Education, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh on 12.03.2008 had not been attended to and no information had been supplied till date, although many inter-communications were going on between PIO’s who forwarded the matter to the DPI who forwarded the matter to the Principal Hindu College, Amritsar. All papers landed in the lap of PIO/Hindu College, Amritsar who did not move further in the matter. Hence the complaint. The Complaint was sent to the PIO and the date of hearing fixed for today and both parties informed through registered post.

2. Today, the Deputy Director representing the PIO/DPI(C) states that information has since been supplied to the applicant through letter dated 11.12.2008 by the PIO/Principal, Hindu College, Amritsar through a covering letter duly indexed, page marked and attested on every point asked for by him. Sh. R.C.Verma acknowledges the receipt. However, he states that information is not only misleading but it is loaded with aspersions against the Complainant
AC No-382 -2008

himself which are required to be removed/sanitized. He has been directed to state the exact deficiencies to the Commission with copies to all the PIOs concerned who are hereby directed to complete the deficiences directly in accordance with the original RTI application under due receipt from the Complainant to be supplied to him at least ten days before the next date of hearing with a set for the record of the Commission. Meanwhile, all three PIOs are hereby directed to offer their explanation for the great delay in dealing of the applications despite appeal being filed and the complaint being made.
Adjourned to 10.02.2009.

SD-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
16.12.2008
(LS)

Sh Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com) PH : 0172-4630054

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Kartar Chand, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard.

2. Complainant states that his wife is working as librarian in a private college and she was not granted revised grade of Rs.300/600 during the period 01.11.1966 to 31.12.1985 in accordance with the condition of service of librarian working in private affiliated colleges. He wants to know how many librarians were getting lesser grade and also want to know if there is any move to grant to such librarian the grade Rs.300/600 to remove the discrimination and anomalous situation and further to count entire service of such incumbent from the date of appointment for grant of higher grades. This information was sought as per item no.3 of his application.

3. As per item no.4, Complainant wants to know after implementation of pay commission recommendations in 1986-1996, Govt. had circulated the same to all .heads of department for fixing a pay of all the officers/officials working under them. The pay of librarian working in Govt./private colleges, must have been fixed by the head of their office where they were working or the controlling officer who was handling establishment of this cadre. He has asked for notings on files relating to such order. DPI is directed that information asked for by the applicant must be obtained from the concerned authority and handed over to the Applicant.

4. Adjourned to 02.01.09 (12.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 21st November, 2008

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com) PH : 0172-4630054

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56 C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana,

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.
Public Information Officer
O/o DPI, Pb. Colleges,
Chandigarh
……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal , the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard.

2. Complainant states that still complete information has not been provided to him inspite of the orders issued by the Commission. During the last hearing PIO/APIO was directed to personally appear or their representative should have an authority letter issued by the PIO/APIO but in today’s hearing neither PIO nor APIO is present which shows that the Respondent is not taking the RTI Act very seriously. Respondent is directed to ensure that complete information is provided to the Complainant before the next date of hearing failing which action under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 will be initiated.
. 3. Adjourned to 21.11.08 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 16th October, 2008

Shri LS Gupta versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No.32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri. L.S.Gupta
Gupta Eye-Sight Testing Centre,
Opp. Old Bus Stand, Patel Nagar,
College Road, Barnala

…..Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions(E)
SCO 95-97, Sector 17-D
Chandigarh
.....Respondent
CC No- 443 of 2008:

Present:
Shri. L.S.Gupta, Complainant in person.
Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, APIO-cum-Superintendent.
Sh. Narinder Singh, Sr. Asstt. for PIO, DPI(E), Pb.

Order:

On the last date of hearing, the PIO had been directed to search the old record and to supply him certified copies of the documents required by the Complainant (Sh. L.S.Gupta had an uncertified copy of letter dated 01.12.1986). However, it has been informed by the PIO that the original of said letter has not become available from their record despite their best efforts. On point no. 2, it has been clearly stated that the seniority lists of un-trained teachers of Patiala Division dated 31.12.1959 was not available with them. Also that the seniority lists of JBT teachers are prepared by the DEOs who are their appointing authority and are maintained at their level and no record is available at the DPI’s level.
2. In pursuance of the directions of the Commission dated 03.06.2008 and 23.07.2008, a reply has been given to the Complainant today under signatures of the PIO-cum-Deputy Director vide letter dated 23.09.2008 with copy to the Commission.
3. Sh. L.S.Gupta has given another letter dated 29.07.2008 in which he has asked for an enquiry to be made as to how the papers have gone missing
CC No- 443 of 2008
for responsibility to be fixed, FIR to be lodged etc.

4. It is observed that apart from the typed copy of the said letter dated 01.12.1986 which the Complainant is carrying, there is no other proof of the existence of any such letter. Neither is he able to specify the source of the said uncertified letter dated 01.12.86 stating only that he had got it from ‘some’ employees Union (he is not able to tell which office of which union). He is carrying the letter of the DEO addressed to the Director dated 13.02.1995 in which reference has been given to the representation of Sh. L.S.Gupta and perhaps contains facts as quoted by the Complainant himself in his representation in first para.

5. In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to direct that an enquiry should be instituted or FIR should be lodged etc.
With this, the matter is hereby disposed of.

Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
24.09.2008
(LS)

Dr Rupinder Kaur versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Rupinder Kaur
H.No.593, Ward No.8,
Japani Colony, Keharwali
Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction(Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1093 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Smt. Jasminder Kaur/APIO and Arjun Singh, Supdtt. on behalf of the Respondent.

Dr. Rupinder Kaur filed an application dated 27.05.2008 that information provided to her on her original application dated 19.4.2008 is incomplete.
None has appeared on behalf of the Complainant. In her complaint she has mentioned 4 points where information is incorrect. The respondent has submitted documents where in my view all information has been provided to the complainant. Therefore, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 22.09.2008

Shadi Lal Aggarwal versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal,
56-C, Kichlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o DPI, Pb Colleges,
Chandigarh.
……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1465 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. Shadi Lal Aggarwal, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Kartar Chand , Suptd & Sh. Nachatar Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

2. Sh. Kartar Chand , Suptd appearing on behalf of the Respondent is without any authority letter. He is directed that in future hearings PIO/APIO should appear personally or representative should have an authority letter issued by the PIO/APIO.
3. Respondent in his reply has written that record being very old is not available. Complainant states that he is not satisfied with the reply given to him and further states that in response to his application for information, he should be provided, copy of the orders of the Government vide which grade of the librarian was revised w.e.f 01.11.1996 to Rs.300/600. He should also be supplied the copy of orders vide which the pay of the librarian working in Government and private colleges w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996 were fixed. Respondent is directed to supply the copies of the orders to the Complainant within 15 days.
4. Adjourned to 16.10.08 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 4th September, 2008

Sh RK Garg versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh.R.K.Garg,
# 66, St. No. 4, Shankar Nagar,
Fatehgarh Road, Hoshiarpur.
......Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI(Colleges) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.

.....Respondent.
CC No-1121-of 2008:

Present:
Sh.R.K.Garg, Complainant in person.
Smt. Maninder Dhillon, Deputy Director, Education for APIO.
Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur, Joint Director.
Sh. Darshan Kumar Verma, Senior Assistant (dealing hand).
Sh. Raj Kumar Bhalla on behalf of the PIO/Principal, DAV College.

Order:

The representative of the PIO has stated that full information required by Sh. R.K.Garg has been supplied to him vide letter dated 29.04.2008 addressed to him through registered letter by the Principal of the DAV College, Dr. Janmit Singh. Copy of the certificates to refresher courses has also been supplied to him with that letter, nothing more is due. Sh. R.K.Garg states that the information asked for by him has not been supplied. He had stated in his application dated 10.03.2008 :-

“As per your memo under reference (copy enclosed for ready reference), the Principal, DAV College, Hoshiarpur has sent my case of pay verification in senior scale to your office as per their letter number 8400 dated 11.12.2001. Your office has raised some objections and did not approve my senior scale Now you are requested to supply me duly authenticated photo copies of duly attested photo copies of certificates of two refresher courses done by me which were sent along with the case of my senior scale by Principal, DAV college, Hoshiarpur to your office as per their letter no. 8400 dated 11.12.2001. This information is urgently required by me under right to information act, 2005”.
CC No-1121-of 2008

2. He stated that the information which has been supplied to him through letter dated 29.04.2008 does not have authenticated photo copies of the attested photo copies which had been sent by the Principal DAV College, Hoshiarpur to the DPI with their letter dated 11.12.2001 which is very clear from the fact that the photo stat copies provided to him have been attested on 25.09.2002 and not before 11.12.2001. Therefore, it is very clear that photo stat provided to him are not actually the ones which had been attached to the letter dated 11.12.2001. These are required since in reply to his writ petition in the High Court, the said college has stated that the Complainant gave forged copies of certificates of refresher courses.

3. The PIO office of DPI(College) is hereby directed to ensure that the necessary information is made available to Sh. R.K.Garg by requisitioning same from the DAV College, Hoshiarpur and providing it to him as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act. While giving the said documents, the covering letter may give reference to his RTI Application alongwith details of documents being supplied and also state that they are true copies of attested photo stat copies available on record of the college.
Adjourned to 08.10.2008.

-Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
26.08.2008
(ls)

Manjit Singh Pasricha Advisor versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Manjit Singh Pasricha(Advisor)
North India SC/ST&B.C. Employees
Presidium (Regd) Head Quarter 1243
Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions(S),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 157 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Manjit Singh Pasricha, Complainant in person.
Sh. Manjit Singh, Registrar on behalf of the Respondent.


All information has been provided to Manjit Singh except point No. 5 and this is to be obtained from the D.P.I. (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. One more chance is given to the PIO to collect all the information from the concerned department within 15 days and to file compliance report in the Commission on the next date of hearing along with a copy of the receipt of information by the applicant as well as a copy of the information supplied for record of the Court.
The next date of hearing i.e. 8.09.08 at 2:30 pm.


(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 04.08.2008

Gurdev Singh Sidhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Gurdev Singh Sidhu,
73-B, Gurjaipal Nagar,
Cool Road, Jalandhar (Pb.)
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions(Colleges),
Punjab Chandigarh.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 78 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Joint Director, H.S. Bedi, D.C.F & A and Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt., on behalf of the Respondent.

In the earlier order dated 23.06.2008, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt. was directed to provide information on point No.5(c) to the complainant by registered post. Today 13 pages along with a covering letter are presented in the Commission which cover point No.5(c). Since the complainant is not present today. I direct the respondent to send certified copies of the information to him through registered post.
The case is disposed of and closed.
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 14.07.08

Sh Manjit Singh Pasricha Advisor versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Manjit Singh Pasricha(Advisor)
North India SC/ST&B.C. Employees
Presidium (Regd) Head Quarter 1243
Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions(S),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 157 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Manjit Singh Pasricha, Complainant in person.
None on behalf of the Respondent.

Sh. Manjit Singh Pasricha filed a complaint on 15.01.2008 received in the Commission on 21.01.2008 that his RTI application dated 08.09.2007 along with requisite fee of Rs.10/- has not been attended to. Information sought by him is regarding service record of Prabjot Singh, Sr. Assistant in DPI Colleges, Punjab. The respondent has dispatched most of the queries to the complainant on 14.11.2007. The complainant states that only a part of the information demanded is pending. The Respondent is not present. It is directed that at the next hearing, the PIO, DPI Secondary Punjab, Chandigarh shall be personally present .with the remaining information.
The next date of hearing is 04.08.2008 at 2:30 pm.
Sd/- (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 07.07.2008

Gurdev Singh Sidhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Gurdev Singh Sidhu
73-B, Gurjaipal Nagar
Cool Road, Jalandhar (Pb)
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction(Colleges),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 78 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Gurdev Singh Sidhu, Complainant in person.
Smt. Jaswinder Kuar, Joint Director/APIO & Baljit Inder Singh, Sr.Assistant on behalf of the Respondent.

Gurdev Singh Sidhu filed a complaint dated 07.01.2008 received in the Commission on 09.01.2008 that his original application dated 13.11.2007 along with the postal order of Rs.50/- has not been attended to.

“5A - Pension papers in respect of Mrs. Manorama Sidhu Retd. Principal.
5(C) Datewise details of pension papers respect of Mrs. Manorama Sidhu retired principal kept pending by different officials/officers on their table as per movement register from March 2004 to July 2007”.

The respondent submits the required information in point No.5A of the original application and as regards point No.5(c) is concerned another date is requested where proper reply can be filed so that the complainant is satisfied. Therefore, at the next date of hearing, if the complainant is satisfied then the case will be disposed of.
The next date of hearing is 23.06.2008 at 2:30 p.m.
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 14.05.2008

Anil Sandhir versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sh. Anil Sandhir,
# 2994, HIG, Phase ' I,
Dugri, Ludhiana (Pb.). …… Complainant
Vs

Public Information officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions (SE), Pb.,
Sector ' 17, Chandigarh. …… Respondent

CC - 2088 of 2007

ORDER

Present:
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Sh. Avtar Singh, Legal Advisor, DEO(S), Ludhiana, Sh. Ram Singh Superintendent cum PIO, O/o DPI(S), Ludhiana.
---------

1. On the last date of hearing on 20.03.2008 it was directed that the DEO (SE), Ludhiana will be personally present with the information that is deficient. He will also submit an affidavit stating the reasons for his absence or his Representative during proceedings held on 20.03.2008.

2. During the proceedings today the Respondent states that complete information has been provided. He also submits an affidavit dated 09.04.2008 explaining the reasons of absence of the APIO on the last date of hearing. He also explains reasons for incorrect marking on the envelop dispatched on 07.03.2008. This affidavit is taken on record.

3. The Respondent assures the Commission that there will be no delay in provisioning of information in future and the procedures have been adopted to ensure information is sent to the applicants in time.

4. Since the information stands supplied and it appears that the Complainant is satisfied as he is not present nor has he submitted any specific observations to the Commission, the case is, therefore, disposed of and closed.

5. Announced in the hearing. Copies be sent to both the parties.


Chandigarh (P.K.Grover)
Dated: 10.04.2008. Lt. Gen. (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

Sh Prem Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Prem Singh,
Vill. Mullanpur, Distt. Fatehgarh sahib, via Patiala. ......Complainant

Vs.

PIO/.O/O DPI (Colleges), Sector 17, Chandigarh. .....Respondent.

CC No- 303 - 2008:

Present:
None for the comoplainant.
Sh. Arjan Singh, APIO-cum-Supdt. O/O DPI(C), Punjab.

Order:

Sh. Prem Singh, vide his complaint dated 7.2.08 submitted that his application dated 24.12.07 made under the Right to Information Act 2005 Act with due payment of fee to the address of DPI(C), Punjab had not been attended to within the stipulated period. The APIO has stated vide reply dated 31.3.08, presented during the hearing today, that the application was received in his office on 11.1.08 and related to two different branches. The APIO has offered suo moto explanation for the delay. I have gone through it and I am satisfied that the office has shown due diligence in dealing with the matter. However, It is observed that it is unexplained delay from 24.11.07 to 11.1.08 (48 days) when the application appears to have remained en route within the office which should be looked into end needs explaining. Since the reply/information was not supplied with 30 days, it is how required to be supplied free of charge to the applicant as stipulated u/s 7(6) of the Right to Information Act. However after having gone through the material which has been provided to the applicant after collecting it from various sources, as well as the volume of information concerning 54 colleges in the state, which has been prepared for providing it to the applicant in the form in which he asked for it, I am of the view that the APIO deserves appreciation. The information has been

CC-303/2008

supplied today in the Court and copy of the information rendered for the record of the Commission. With this the mater is hereby disposed of.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) State Information Commissioner
01.04. 2008.

Sh Rajinder Bhatia Advocate versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Rajinder Bhatia (Advocate)
Chamber No. 158,
New Courts Complex,
Jalandhar City ......Complainant
Vs.

PIO/.O/o Directors Public Instructions (Colleges), Pb.
Chandigarh .....Respondent.

CC No-229-of 2008:

Present:
None for the complainant.
Sh. Jaswinder Kaur, Joint Director Administration-cum- APIO/DPI (C) Punjab.

Order:

Sh. Rajinder Bhatia advocate vide his complaint dated 28.01.2008 made to the State Information Commission stated that his application dated 31.10.2007 with due payment of fee on the same date made to the address of the PIO-cum-DC, District Administration, Jalandhar had not been attended to. The information sought pertains to Govt. College in Jalandhar Distt. He stated that information was supplied in part on 01.01.2008 and further in part on 11.01.2008. Since the full information was not supplied till the date of complaint and had been delayed beyond the stipulated period, he prayed that punitive action under section 20 be taken against the PIO. A copy of the complaint was sent to the PIO along with annexures, the date of hearing fixed for today and both parties were informed vide registered notice dated 26.02.2008 regarding the same to both parties.

2. Today none is present on behalf of the complainant. The APIO-cum-Joint Director Colleges has presented letter dated 24.03.2008 address to the State Information Commission, being covering letter, along with copies of all record supplied. The information, as available from time to time was supplied to CC-229/2007 the complainant and since it was to be collected from different sources, the final information was supplied on 20.02.2008.

3. I have gone through the reply of the PIO, which is detailed and contains in a way, a suo motu explanation of the delay as per the Act. The application was received from the Deputy Commissioner (who was not the PIO concerned only) on 23.11.2007 and there after information was to be collected from different colleges of Jalandhar and from the Govt. for which a lot of interoffice communication were made. I am satisfied that due diligence is exercised by the said PIO and therefore do not considered it to be fit case for penalty.

4. The final information has been supplied to the complainant on 20.02.2008. Due and adequate notice of the hearing of his complaint to be held today in the Commission had been given to him. In case he had any grievances, he could have appeared today. It is presumed that he has received the full information and the case is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) State Information Commissioner
25.03. 2008.
(Uma)

JOGI RAM AND ORS Versus KISHNI DEVI AND ANR



JOGI RAM AND ORS Versus KISHNI DEVI AND ANR COCP 1333 of 2007



Sh Kulwant Singh versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Kulwant Singh S/O Sh. Bakhshish Singh,
# 62, Khalsa Avenue,
P.O.Khalsa College, Amritsar. ......Complainant

Vs.


PIO/. O/O Director, Public Instructions (SE), Pb,
SCO-97-97, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. .....Respondent.


AC No-221-of 2007:

Present:
None for the complainant.
Smt. Tarinder Kaur, APIO-cum-Supdt.,O/O/ DPI(S) Pb.
Sh. Mohinder Singh, Sr.Asstt. O/O DPI(S),Pb.

Order:

Vide letter dated 13.9.07, received on 18.9.07, supported by an affidavit dated 12.9.07, Sh. Kulwant Singh has stated that he has received the information/record from the Principal on 16.7.07. With this, he has received full information/record. Therefore, he wishes to withdraw his Appeal dated 10.7.07. In view of the facts, the Appeal is dismissed and withdrawn.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) State Information Commissioner

Sh Rajesh Sood versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor (Court No-2), Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Rajesh Sood,
Sr. Asstt., O/o DPI(Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector-17-D,
Chandigarh.
__________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Secondary Education), Punjab,
SC0- 95-97, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh. __________ Respondent

CC No. 1665 of 2007
Present:
i) Sh. Rajesh Sood, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Madan Lal, Supdt.,-cum-APIO,on behalf of the respondent

ORDER

Heard.

In response to the application for information of the complainant, the respondent had earlier written to him vide his letter dated 23-8-2007 that the information asked for is not available since the concerned file, which is now about 20 years old, could not be located. In the hearing today however, the respondent has informed the Court that letter No. 9/41-84/Services1(1) dated 14-7-1988, referred to in the application for information has been located and the information asked for by the complainant, has since been provided to him vide the respondent’s letter dated 22-10-2007. The respondent states that the information which has been provided to him is deficient in two respects. Firstly, that the date from which the post of senior assistant to which he was promoted on 1-10-1987 fell vacant, has not been communicated to him . Secondly. the notings leading to his promotion on 1-10-1987 have also not been given to him. Insofar as the first point is concerned, the respondent has stated that the complainant was promoted against a leave vacancy and the concerned date will be located and given to him within a week. Insofar as the second point is concerned, the respondent submits that, firstly, the complainant has not asked for the noting to which he has referred , and secondly, the respondent has stated that the notings leading to his promotion could not be located, being very old, despite their best efforts. The contention of the respondent is accepted and this case is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to convey the information regarding the date from which the post, on which the complainant

was promoted on 1-10-1987, fell vacant,within one week.

Disposed of.


(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 25th October, 2007

Sh Ram Saran Dass versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No.32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Ram Saran Dass ......Complainant
Vs.

PIO, D.P.I (Colleges) .....Respondent

AC No. 180 of 2007:

Present:
Sh. Ram Saran Dass, complainant in person.
Sh. Arjan Singh, Supdt. on behalf of PIO

Order:

As the concerned case was not available with the office on that day. The representative of the PIO as well as complainant requested for adjournment on some other date. Hence, the case adjourned to 5.12.2007.
-Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner

Sh Randev Singh Sandhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85,2nd floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Randev Singh Sandhu,
S/o Sh. G.S. Sandhu,
Near civil Hospital,
Anandpur Sahib-140118,
Distt. Ropar.
___________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO 66-67, Sector-17,
Chandigarh. ` ________ Respondent

CC No. 1042 of 2007

Present:
i) Sh.Randev Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Ms. Raman Kalia, Sr. Assistant, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.

The respondent brought the entire information wanted by the complainant including a photostat copy of the entire file relating to him as well as a copy of the workload mentioned in the Court’s Orders dated 7-9-2007. . The respondent is directed to hand over the information to the complainant after receiving the prescribed fees.

Disposed of.



(Kulbir Singh) (P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner, State Information Commissioner

Dated: 14th September, 2007

Sh Ram Sharn Dass versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Ram Sharn Dass ---.Complainant
Vs.
PIO/O/OD.P.I. (Colleges) ----.Respondent.


AC No-180-of 2007:


Present:
Shri Ram Saran Dass, complainant in person.
Shri Tarsem Singh Dhariwal, Principal-cum-PIO of the College -Respondent.
Shri Arjun Singh, Supdt on behalf of D.P.I. (Colleges.)
Smt. Karam Kaur on behalf of P.I.O. 'cum-Principal Riputhuman College for Women.

Order:

On the last date of hearing i.e. July 17, 2007 in para-6 of the order in respect of leave record for the year 2003 to 2006, the P.IO. has presented letter dated August 20, 2007 explaining the discrepancy with copy to the complainant. On his part, the complainant has also, vide his letter dated July 20, 2007, sent through Speed Post, both to the Commission and to the P.I.O. has given details regarding discrepancies in the three sets of information with respect to the leave account of Smt. Ritu Bhardwaj. However, the P.I.O. states that the first two pages of this letter have not been received by him. These have been Photostat and supplied to him today. The Principal is not carrying the original leave record with him. He is directed to bring the original leave record on the next date of hearing. The P.I.O. has clarified that there is not original leave record. There is no application of any staff of that period available and thus cannot be supplied.
2. Shri Arjun Singh, Superintendent on behalf of P.I.O. office of the Director,, Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab, is also present in Court today on behalf of the original P.I.O. from whom, the application was transferred to the Principal-cum-P.I.O. of the Colleges. He has presented a letter dated

AC No-180-of 2007:

August 20, 2007 addressed to the Commission containing the copy of the letter of Smt. Ritu Bhardwaj addressed to the P.I.O. with copy to the Chief Commissioner, State Information Commission dated July 28, 2007 and dated June 18, 2006 also containing copies of the orders in CC-482/2006 Ramesh Bhardwaj Vs. Registrar, Irrigation Deptt Punjab and CC-2202007 titled The first case has been disposed of by the Bench of Mr. R.K.Gupta and Mr. P.P.S Gill and the second case has been disposed of by the Division bench constituted by Mr. Surinder Singh and Lt. Genl. (Retd.) P.K. Grover, State Information Commissioners, with the following order:

“ - - - -Moreover, cases with similar information being sought i.e. CC-508/2006 and CC-165/2006.”

3. From the above, it is clear that cross-cases have been filed by Shri Ramesh Bhardwaj asking for information including service particulars in respect of Shri Ram Saran Dass, J.E and Shri Ram Saran Dass as on its part asked for information containing service record in respect of Smt. Kamlesh Kumar wife of Shri Ramesh Bhardwaj and Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj daughter of Ramesh Bhardwaj.

4. The background of the case is that the wife of Shri Ram Saran Dass, who was the sister of Shri Ramesh Bhardwaj died unnatural death and Shri Ram Saran Dass was convicted under Section 498 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. Shri Ram Saran Dass has filed an appeal against the same in the High Court, which is pending there for disposal and in the meantime he is on bail continuing to serve the parent department.

AC No-180-of 2007:


5. Shri Kamlesh Bhardwaj, in a separate case has taken the plea that Shri Ram Saran Dass has been convicted upon her testimony that he caused mental torture and physical harassment to her sister-in-law as a result of which he had been convicted and therefore, he has troubled her time and again by seeking information. Similarly, Smt. Ritu Bhardwaj has again taken some plea and also claimed that any further information should not be given being the third party information. It appears necessary that in the first place the Registry should clarify how manay cases under the R.T.I. Act are pending in the Commission and with which Bench, filed by both the complainant-Ram Saran Dass and Ramesh Bhardwaj. I am of the view that these should all be brought up before one Bench so that they can be dealt with together.

6. It is seen that one of the Benches has passed a judgment that being sought by Shri Ramesh Bhardwaj about the service particulars of Ram Saran Dass is covered under third party information and therefore information has been refused. Whereas, in the present case, I have ordered the information to be given and now Smt. Ritu Bhardwaj has claimed third-party exemption for any other information to be given. Therefore, the Registry may report .

7. The matter is adjourned to the next date of hearing. Any of the party, who wants to say anything more, may state so.

Adjourned to October 10, 2007.


SD:
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
August 21, 2007.

Sh Randev Singh Sandhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85,2nd floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Randev Singh Sandhu,
S/o Sh. G.S. Sandhu,
Near civil Hospital,
Anandpur Sahib-140118,
Distt. Ropar. _________________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO 66-67, Sector-17,
Chandigarh. ________________ Respondent

CC No. 1042 of 2007

Present:
i) Sh. Gurdip Singh, on behalf of the complainant.
ii) Ms. Raman Kalia, Sr. Assistant, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

Heard.

The respondent has informed the complainant that the required information, which consists of six pages, can be sent to him after deposit of the prescribed fees of Rs. 49/--.

The complainant is advised to send a Bank Draft payable to the PIO, Office of the DPI (Colleges), Punjab, who will, thereafter, send the information to the complainant through Registered post. As desired by him, an opportunity is given to the complainant to point out deficiencies, if any, in the information which is provided, at 10 AM on 7-9-2007. Both the parties should be present on that date, unless the complainant does not find any deficiency, in which case he should send an intimation to this effect to the respondent, and the case will be deemed to be disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner

Shri Ram Sharn Dass versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Shri Ram Sharn Dass
#2849, Sector 40/C ,Chandigarh ......Complainant
Vs.

PIO/.O/o Director Public Instructions (Colleges),
Sector 17, Chandigarh .....Respondent.

AC No-180-of 2007:

Present:
Shri Ram Sharn Dass, appellant in person.
Shri Tarsem Dhariwal, Principal, Govt. College, Nabha
Shri Gurcharan Singh, Supdt. of College, Nabha
Shri Hakam Singh, Supdt. O/o D.P.I.(Colleges) Chandigarh

(Service Branch)
Order:

Shri Ram Saran Dass, appellant, vide his appeal dated May 16, 2007 has stated that his application made to the Public Information officer, Office of Director, Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab dated January 21, 2007 with due payment of fee, has not been attended to properly and full information asked for has not been given. The Director, Public Instructions forwarded the case to the Principal , Govt. Ripudaman College, Nabha to supply the information, that also, two months after the date of his application on March 22, 2007. An appeal was made to the Secretary, Education Punjab on 03-03-2007. Nothing came of that also. Thereafter, the P.I.O. sent incomplete information on April 04, 2007, stating that whatever information was available with the College had been supplied and the rest of the information may be available with the Department. The appellant, therefore, vide his application dated April 18, 2007 once again requested for the information. He states that vide his letter dated April 24, 2007, he also gave clarifications on the information required by him. It was seen that the letter addressed to him by the Principal, Govt. Ripudaman College, Nabha dated April 04, 2007 was not available, although the annexure giving point wise answers, was available. A copy of the covering letter has been taken on record today as supplied by the appellant.

AC No-180-of 2007:

2. I have gone through the clarifications and find that these are further questions arising out of the answers given. It is not the intention of the Act to permit this and replies to the original application are to be given. The appellant states that the information has been supplied to him on all points except points 15, 16 and 17. Therefore, these points along with the replies given have been perused. Question (xv) states:

“Way of procedure for selection of Ritu Bhardwaj adopted by the selection committee/authority at the time of her appointment.”


2. The Principal PIO of the College, who is present, today has clarified through a statement made before the Commission that the letter of appointment has already been given to the appellant in which it is quite clear that the employment was purely contractual, which, as stated in the contract, is for a period of contract only which is limited to the academic session. However, thereafter, she along with all other such contractual employees are continuing on contractual basis until regular recruitment takes places through Punjab Public Service Commission under orders of the High Court and Supreme Court.

3. Further, he stated - selection was made by a Committee of the College constituted under orders of the Secretary, Education, which consisted of the Principal, the Head of the Department concerned and a member of the Teaching Staff representing the Scheduled Castes. She had been selected out of the two candidates, who had applied. She fulfilled the qualifications and was selected as per the procedure adopted at that time by the Committee in which weightage had been given for qualifications in N.C.C, Experience, Sports and Interview. In the opinion of the Committee, he was found the more suitable candidate after conducting the interview.

AC No-180-of 2007:

4. Against Item No. (xvi) “Copy of Service Book of Ritu Bhardwaj”. The P.I.O. stated that no service book is maintained for contractual employee.

5. Against Item (xvii) '“Leave record for the year 2003-2006”. The P.I.O. has stated that no leave record is maintained for contractual employees. However, they are paid for the number of days that they actually worked and for the days that they did not work or are on leave He states that in so far as Item No.(xvii) is concerned, record has been supplied to him three times and each time it is different and there are many discrepancies therein. He is directed to point out the discrepancies in a specific letter, copy of which should be given to the P.I.O. He states he will do it within a week with copy to the Commission.

6. The P.I.O. should carry the leave record with him including the applications on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to August 21, 2007

SD:
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
July 17, 2007

Sh Brij Bihari versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No.32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Brij Bihari
......Complainant
Vs.

PIO, D.P.I, Colleges, Punjab.
.....Respondent
CC No. 604 of 2007:

Present:
None for the complainant.
None for the respondent.

Order:
Today, none is present from both the sides. The Commission has passed the following order in the last hearing on 25.4.07:

“The APIO has presented the compliance report stating that the period from 22.2.1983 to 27.7.1983 has been regularized by the Principal of the said College on the directions of the DPI)Colleges) Punjab and Shri Brij Bihari has been informed about it by post vide endorsement made on 23.2.2007. He also stated that the matter had been further forwarded to the Sport Department along with the service book of the applicant of the said college, since Shri Brij Bihari has retired from the office of the District Sports Officer. Ludhiana. However, no receipt from Shri Brij Bihari has been produced whereas in the application under the RTI Act, he had asked that it should be sent to him by speed Post. The PIO is directed to file the receipt before the end of the week. This case should be considered as disposed of only after the Commission has received the confirmation.”

2. The letter addressed to the Complainant, sent by speed post, has been returned undelivered in the Commission with comments which are not legible. Therefore another letter is being sent to the complainant and the PIO to appear on the next date of hearing for the compliance of the above quoted orders passed by the Commission.
Adjourned to 20th June, 2007.

SD: SD:
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner State information Commissioner

30.5.2007

Mrs Soma Rani versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
S.C.O. No. 84-85, SECTOR :17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Mrs. Soma Rani,
W/o of Shri Madan Singh,
Resident of DAV College Road,
Near Baba Deep Singh Gurudwara,
Zalalabad, District: Ferozepur. Complainant
Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions(S),
SCO No. 95-97, Sector: 17-D, Chandigarh. Respondent

CC No.252/2007

ORDER

Present:
Shri Madan Singh on behalf of Complainant.
Shri Narinder Singh, Assistant Director(School Administration)
On behalf of Respondent.

The Respondent states that information available with the Department, has been supplied to the Complainant. The Complainant states that he wants information as per Column No. 3 of his letter dated 8.1.2007. The Respondent states that the information asked in Column No. 3 is not available with the Department. More-over, he further states that minimum qualification for the recruitment of Arts and Craft Teacher is Matric plus Diploma. Therefore, candidate is not supposed to submit Marks Sheet of 8th Class with the application. He further states that the selection has been made by Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board and the said Board has supplied Merit List which has been further supplied to the Complainant. Since SSS Board been disbanded, therefore, he has shown his inability to get any further information from the Board. The Complainant is however directed to file a new application with the SSS Board, which has conducted the interviews and asked for applications for recruitment of Arts and Craft Teachers.

2. Therefore case is disposed of.

3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Sd/-
Er. Surinder Singh
State Information Commissioner


Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Lt. Gen. P.K. Grover
Dated: 24.5.2007 State Information Commissioner

Shri Brij Bihari versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Shri Brij Bihari

Vs.

PIO/D.P.I .(Colleges) Punjab.

Complaint Case No. CC-604-2006:

Present:
None for the complainant.

Shri Dinesh Gupta, A.P.I.O-cum-Deputy Director, Colleges,
O/o D.P.I. Colleges, Punjab.

Order:

The A.P.I.O. has presented the compliance report stating that the period from 23-2-1983 to 27-7-1983 has been regularized by the Principal of the said College on the directions of the D.P.I. (Colleges) Punjab, and Shri Brij Bihari has been informed about it by post vide endorsement made on 23-2-2007. He also stated that the matter had been further forwarded to the Sports Department along with the service book of by the applicant said College, since Shri Brij Bihari retired from the office of the District Sports Officer, Ludhiana. However, no receipt from Shri Brij Bihari has been produced whereas in the application under the RTIO Act, he had asked that it should be sent to him by Speed Post. The P.I.O. is directed to file the receipt before the end of the week. This case should be considered as disposed of only after the Commission has received the confirmation.

Adjourned to May 23, 2007.


SD: SD:

(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) (Mrs.Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

April 25, 2006.

Shri Arun Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.


. Shri Arun Sharma
B-IX/34, Malkana Mohalla,Kapurthala
…Complainant

Vs.

1. The Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges)
Punjab, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh
.
2. The Public Information Officer, O/o Principal
Hindu Kanaya College, Kapurthala

…..Respondents

CC No. 799 of 2006


Present:
None for the complainant
Mr. Parabhjit Singh for respondent No.1.

Information is stated to have been supplied to the complainant. Nothing contrary has been reported on behalf of the complainant. The case, therefore, stands disposed of

Sd/- Sd/-
( P.P.S. Gill) ( R. K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

Shri Randev Sandhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Randev Sandhu ......Complainant
Vs.
PIO/D.P.I.(Colleges) Punjab .....Respondent

CC No. 837 of 2006.

Present:
None for the complainant.
None for the P.I.O. Respondent-Department.

Order:

The complainant-Shri Randev Singh Sandhu, Lecturer, Physics, S.G.T.B. Khalsa College, Anandpur Sahib vide his letter dated November 23, 2007 addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab, submitted that his application dated October 10, 2006, for information under the R.T.I. Act with due payment of fee made to the D.P.I. (Colleges) Punjab, has not been replied to. A copy of the complaint was forwarded to the Public Information Officer, O/o D.P.I. (Colleges) on December 12, 2006 for his response within 15 days for consideration of the Commission. No reply was, received, where-after the case was entrusted to this Bench for disposal and date of hearing was fixed for today. On January 6, 20097, the applicant once again wrote to the Commission to state that he had still not received any information.

2. Today, none is present on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the P.I.O.- Shri Prabhjit Singh, Superintendent and Mrs. Raman Kalia, Dealing Assistant have appeared and stated that the reply had already been sent to Shri Randev Singh Sandhu on November 28, 2006. Vide letter dated 20-1-2007, the Commission was informed of the fact with copy of the earlier communication and a copy of the same was endorsed to the applicant once again.



CC No. 837 of 2006

3. it is observed that the applicant had due notice of the hearing for today which had been issued on February 15, 2007. In case, he had not received the information, he would have appeared in the Court today. It is therefore, assumed the said; information has been received by him and thus the case is disposed of.

SD: SD:
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

March 20, 2007.

Shri Brij Bihari versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Shri Brij Bihari ......Complainant
Vs.

PIO/ D.P.I. (Colleges) Punjab .....Respondent

CC No. 604 of 2006:

Present:
None for the complainant.
None for the Respondent.

Order:

None is present to either side despite the notice to appearing having been sent as far back as January 30, 2007.

In the interests of justice, the case is adjourned to April 25, 2007.

SD:
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner

Gurjant Singh and others Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and Ors CRM No77059 M of 2006

(O and M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision:- 5.3.2007

Gurjant Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and Ors. ...Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:-
Ms.Divya Arora, Advocate for
Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Senior DAG Punjab.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.13564 of 2007
Application is allowed and Annexures A1 to A9 are taken on
record.

CRM No.77059-M of 2006
This unfortunate incident relates to misconduct on the part of
some young students studying in college where they had misbehaved with their professors leading to registration of FIR No.187 dated 22.7.2003 under Sections 332, 353, 186, 506, 148 and 149 IPC . Though the students were not kind to their teachers but they have been so. Ignoring their serious misconduct, the teachers have agreed to forgive their students and have decided to excuse them so that they do not suffer this infirmity in their future life. The compromise reached in this case is annexed as Annexure P6.

This was a case where the students were agitating for a fee hike in the college when they happened to misbehave with their teacher-respondents No.2 and 3. Petitioners, who are of young age and on the threshold of their career, appear to have realized their mistake and have, accordingly, expressed their regrets and apologized for their unacceptable conduct. As can be expected of a teacher when it relates to his wards, the respondents have showed magnanimity and have decided to forget the past and pardoned their students. They need to be commended for this as otherwise the students would suffer the stigma of trial and possible conviction. Though a written compromise was placed on record, but still it was felt that the stand of the teachers be ascertained and, accordingly, they were requested to appear in person seek assurance that they have in fact volunteered to compromise and are not under any compulsion. It is seen that the respondent teachers have consented to pardon the petitioners students as they are really repentant. Both the teacher-respondents appeared before this Court on 1.3.2007 and submitted that the students have expressed their sincere apologies before them and they were genuinely repentant about their misconduct. Teacher-respondents also submitted that having regard to future career of the students, this court may be considerate to quash the impugned FIR as otherwise the students would suffer the stigma in their career. On being asked, the petitioners have filed their individual apology before this court. Written apologies Annexures A1 to A9 are placed on record through CRM No.13564 of 2007. The identically worded apology letter reads as under:

That I feel sorry over the incident that happened on 22.7.2003
during the agitation against fee hike in the Government colleges.

I keep my teachers in high esteem and pay due respect to them.

I feel sorry for thwat had happened on that day. I assure that nothing of the sort will happen in the future.

It can be seen that the students are now genuinely repentant
about their conduct. To err is human. They are human delinquent. Young repentant minds, need to be given a chance for correction. Any harsh treatment may lead to their degeneration. They have a future to look forward to. I am thus inclined to view this case accordingly and would accept this petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioners in view of compromise, even though some of the offences are non-compoundable.

While exercising powers under section 482 Cr.PC such proceedings can be ordered to be quashed. Reference can be made to Dharampal Bajaj and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2006 (4) Criminal Court Cases 1004; Maninder Singh and another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others 2004 (4)
RCR (Crl.) 420, Haji Nihal Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P.and another 1998 Crl.L.J.2082; S.M.Jayaram vs. State of Karnataka, 1976 Crl..L.J.217' State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswami AIR 1977S.C.1489; Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978SC 47; Y.Suresh Babu Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh JT 1987 (2) SC 361 and Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (1990) 3 RCR 332. No useful purpose otherwise is likely to serve in allowing these proceedings to continue as the complainants are not likely to support the prosecution case in view of the compromise.

Present petition is allowed and FIR No.187 dated 22.7.2003
under Sections 332, 353, 186, 506, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Malerkotla and subsequent proceedings thereof are quashed.

(Ranjit Singh)
Judge

Shri Arun Sharma versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Shri Arun Sharma
B-IX/34, Malkana Mohalla,Kapurthala
…Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instruction (Colleges)
Punjab, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh
. …..Respondents.
ii) Public Information Officer, O/o Principal
Hindu Kanaya College, Kapurthala


CC No. 799 of 2006


Present: None for the complainant
Mr. Chandra Has, Advocate for respondent No.2

ORDER

A perusal of the file shows that the complainant is asking for information in respect of one Arun Bala. It is not clear as to whether the information sought for relates to him or it falls under 3rd party information.

Adjourned to 6.4.2007 when the complainant shall explain the position.


( P.P.S. Gill) ( R. K. Gupta)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

26th February, 2007

Shri Rajesh Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Rajesh Jain,
B-IX 716, Gulchaman Street,
Ludhiana. …………………..........Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

….…………….......Respondent

CC No. 428 of 2006

Present :-
None for the complainant.
None for the respondent.

ORDER

A letter dated 3.1.2007 has been received from the respondent department wherein it has been stated that requisite information has been supplied to the complainant by registered post. Nothing contrary has been reported on behalf of the complainant.

In view of the above, case stands disposed of.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (R.K.Gupta)
Dated: 12.1.2007 State Information Commissioner

Sh Ramesh Kumar Gupta Advocate versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

State Information Commission, Punjab,
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17 C , Chandigarh.

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate,
Cinema Building,
Kapurthala. ………….Complainant

Vs

The Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,(Colleges)
Chandigarh. ………….Respondent

CC No. 535 of 2006

Present: i)None.


ORDER

The complainant has informed the Commission vide his letter dated 15-12-2006 that he has received the required information from the respondent.

Disposed of.

(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 21st December,2006

GURSHARAN KAUR ETC Versus GEETIKA KALHA ETC COCP 174 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 19.12.2006.

Gursharan Kaur and others. ....Petitioners.
Versus
Mrs.Getika Kalha and ors. ...Respondents.

CORAM :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.

Present:-
None for the petitioners.
Mr.G.S.Cheema, Sr. DAG.

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL)
This contempt petition has been filed inter-alia alleging that despite interim order dated 22.5.2001 passed by this Court in C.W.P.1901 of 2001, the petitioners who were working as part time Lecturers were not paid the salaries. It is also alleged that the respondents are violating the judgment dated 9.8.2001 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions (Annexure P-5).

In response to the show cause notice, respondent No.5 filed his
reply and along with the same order dated 19.11.2001 (Annexure R-1) was placed on record whereby these contempt proceedings were stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S.L.P.(civil) No.19916 of 2001.

Thereafter these proceedings have been adjourned from time to
time to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Mr.Cheema, Sr. DAG Punjab, on instructions from Mr.Sunil Dutt, Legal Assistant, DPI College, Punjab,states that the above said S.L.Ps. are still pending and the interim order is operated.

In this view of the matter I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioners either to get the same revived and/or file a fresh petition, if so required, or advised, after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Rule discharged.

(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE

Shri Rajesh Jain versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Rajesh Jain,
B-IX 716, Gulchaman Street,
Ludhiana. …………………..........Complainant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
Chandigarh.

….…………….......Respondent

CC No. 428 of 2006

Present :-
None for the complainant.
Shri Hardev Chauhan, Auditor for the respondent.

ORDER

Shri Hardev Singh Chauhan appearing on behalf of the respondent-department states that the information asked for by the complainant is ready and he has been asked to collect the same from the office but has not turned up.
Since the information is of one page, the department is directed to send the same to the complainant by post.

Case to come up for confirmation on 12.1.2007.

Sd/- Chandigarh (R.K.Gupta)
Dated 15.12.2006 State Information Commissioner

Prof Mohd Saleem versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Prof. Mohd. Saleem (Retd.),
#2536-A-1, Odhla Mohalla,
Phool Chakkar, Ropar-140001. …..Complainant.


Vs.

1. The Public Information Officer,
O/o the Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Pb.,
Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2. The Public Information Officer,
O/o the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

3. The Public Information Officer,
O/o the Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh.

4. The Public Information Officer,
O/o the Director for Welfare for Pensioners, Pb.,
SCO 192-193, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. …Respondents.

CC No: 329-2006:


Present:-
None for the complainant.

Shri JIt Singh, Superintendent, DPI (Colleges) for respondent No.1 and 2.
Shri Dalbir Chand for respondent No.3.
Shri Kuldip Singh Sr. Assistant for respondent No.4

ORDER

It is submitted by Shri Jit Singh Superintendent that grouse of Prof. Saleem was of non-grant of selection grade but the same could not be given to him because he did not fulfil the criteria. Similarly he did not submit the pension papers etc. so his pension could not be fixed or disbursed to him. It is further submitted by Shri Jit Singh that registered letters were sent to the complainant twice but they were received back with endorsement from the postman with the remarks that “Addressee not available”.

In view of the above, department may again try to supply the information to Prof. Saleem by sending a letter through registered post. The case to come up for confirmation on 10.11.2006. On that day an intimation will be sent to the complainant that he should also be present so that matter can be resolved.
Sd/-
( R.K.Gupta),
State Information Commissioner.
October 20, 2006.

MANPREET KAUR Vs STATE OF PB AND ORS CWP 15256 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANIDGARH.


Date of Decision : 22.9.2006

Manpreet Kaur ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others. ... Respondents

CORAM :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand

Present : Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has impugned the selection and appointment made by the respondents, wherein respondent No.4 has been appointed as a Guest Faculty Lecturer in English.

We have perused the pleadings in the instant writ petition along with the Result Card-cum-Interview marks assigned to the candidates, who participated in the selection process. Whereas respondent No.4 has been awarded 17 marks, the petitioner has only been awarded 14 marks in the process of selection. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner was awarded more marks at the Graduation and at the Post Graduation levels than that of respondent No.4 and as such, the petitioner ought to have been selected at a position higher in the merit list. Although the petitioner indeed acquired slightly higher marks than that of respondent No.4, both at the Graduate and Post Graduate level, but, we are of the view that in the process of selection against the post of Lecturer merely marks in the academic qualifications cannot determine the inter se
merit of the candidates. Additionally, respondent No.4 has other higher qualification in the nature of MBA, which may have been one of the reasons which had weighed with the Selection Committee in awarding the higher marks to respondent No.4. In fact, it is apparent from the Annexure P/2 that marks awarded were for higher qualifications as well.

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of respondent No.4 is a Head of English Department in the same college to which respondent No.4 has been selected and appointed.

That argument itself cannot be the basis of non-suiting respondent No.4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the father of respondent No.4 participated in the process of selection for the appointment of the Guest
Faculty Lecturer in which respondent No.4 was selected or played any other role therein.

Most importantly, it would be pertinent to mention that
Annexure P/2, the compilation sheet of the result of the candidates, reveals that while finalizing the recommendation of respondent No.4, the Selection
Committee had followed the criteria laid down by the Punjab Government in its letter No. D.P.I. 11/60-2002 M (6) dated 13.8.2002. It is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid criteria was violated while selecting respondent No.4.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )
Judge

( S.D. Anand )
Judge

Prof Dr Pawan Kumar versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.


Prof. Dr. Pawan Kumar,
SCD Govt. College Ludhiana,
R/o B-I, 1446/3H, Shere Pb. Naga,
Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Office,
O/o Director of Public Instructions (College),
Punjab, Chandigarh.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1756 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
Prof. Dr. Pawan Kumar, Complainant in person.
Mr. Arjun Singh, Supdt. on behalf of Respondent.

Dr. Pawan Kumar filed a complaint dated 3.10.2007 to State Information Commission received in the Commission on 9.10.2007 that his application along with requisite fee has not been attended to. His application dated 21.08.07 had been forwarded through speed post to the DPI, College, Punjab, Chandigarh on 22.08.07. Information sought relates to the benefit of senior selection grade after counting ad hoc service as per policy decision taken by Govt. of Punjab, Dep’t. of Higher Education. In his original complaint dated 21.08.07 question no. 1 relates to the senior selection grade given to Smt. Indu Bala, Lecturer in English, Govt. College Mohali and why the selection grade has not been granted to him .In question no 2 he has asked for the exact date when he would be given his selection grade.

It has been pointed out to the complainant that question No. 1 relates to part third party information and question No. 2 does not pinpoint to any specific information. Today Mr. Arjun Singh, Supdt. has appeared on behalf of the respondent without any authority letter or having the designation of APIO.His explanation regarding selection grade of Smt Indu Bala Singh is that she was given the selection grade earlier because of her selection through the PPSC. He also states that within two days they will be writing to Secretary, Higher Education, Punjab, Chandigarh for granting expenditure for Sr. Scale/Selection Grade and then only the case of Dr. Pawan Kumar will be decided. The complainant states that he is in dire need of the said grade and requests the Commission to intervene for deciding the period for which the selection grade will be made. It is explained to Dr. Pawan Kumar that this is not part of the Act and the respondent has explained his 2 queries asked by him (The respondent is also willing to give the verbal points in writing within 2 days) therefore the case is thereby disposed of.

(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh

Sh Ram Saran Dass versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Ram Saran Dass,
# 2849, Sector 40-C,
Chandigarh. ......Complainant

Vs.

PIO/. O/O D.P.I.(College), Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. .....Respondent.


AC No-180-of 2007:

Present:
None for the complainant.
Dr. Tarsem Dghariwal, PIO-cum-Principal
Sh. Arjan Singh, Supdt. and Karam Kaur, dealing Asstt. on behalf of the PIO.

Order:

The PIO had already clarified on the last date of hearing that no original leave record was available and therefore applications of the staff cannot be supplied. However, he has brought the attendance register in original today but Sh. Ram Saran Dass is not present and therefore could not inspect it. The PIO explained that full information had already been supplied to the applicant. before the request of Smt Ritu Bhardwaj for non supply of information pertaining to her, being third party. Therefore, her request for information not to be given out being third party information can only be considered as and when any fresh application for information about her is received. In the present application, information already stand supplied vide 3 letters dated 20.8.07, 7.2.07 (2 pages) 26.2.07 (2 pages) and Sh. Ram Saran had stated that he has found discrepancies in the information supplied on 3 occasions. Sh. Ram Saran Dass should now approach the Competent Authority with complaint regarding alleged distorted facts, if so advised, as the redressal of his perceived grievances do not lie with in the scope/jurisdiction of the Commission. In so far as the PIO is concerned, the next time if Sh. Ram Sarar Dass or any other person ask for any personal information regarding Mrs. Rity Bhardwaj, he may keep in mind her request for not providing it as third party information and take a decision on her application before releasing the information as provided u/s 11 of the Act. With these observation, the case is hereby disposed of.


Sd/-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) State Information Commissioner

Sh Randev Singh Sandhu versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85,2nd floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Randev Singh Sandhu,
S/o Sh. G.S. Sandhu,
Near civil Hospital,
Anandpur Sahib-140118,
Distt. Ropar.
___________ Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions (Colleges),
SCO 66-67, Sector-17,
Chandigarh. ` ________ Respondent

CC No. 1042 of 2007

Present:
i) Sh.Randev Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Ms. Raman Kalia, Sr. Assistant, on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER
Heard.

The required information has been provided by the respondent to the complainant except that it has been stated therein that according to the workload sent by the College to the respondent, the post of Lecturer in Physics became surplus but a copy of the workload stated to have been sent by the College has not been provided to him. The respondent states that a copy of the work load would be available in some other section with which she is not concerned but she is present here as representative of the PIO and ,therefore, she must accept the responsibility for the entire office of the respondent.

In the above circumstances, I direct that a copy of the work load mentioned in the afore mentioned paragraph should be obtained by the respondent either from the office of the respondent or by sending a messenger to the office of the SGTB Khalsa College,Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar, and given to the complainant within one week .

The complainant in his application had asked for a photostat copy of the entire file related to him. Some documents have been given to him but he wishes to inspect the file. The PIO is directed to make the file available to the complainant for inspection to day itself, and to give him copies of any other document which he selects.

Adjourned to 10 AM on 14-9-2007 for confirmation of compliance.

(P.K.Verma)
Dated: 7th September, 2007 State Information Commissioner

Shri Brij Bihari versus DPI Colleges Punjab Chandigarh

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Shri Brij Bihari

Vs:

P.I.O./D.P.I. (Colleges.)

Complaint Case No. CC-604 -2006:


Present:
Shri Brij Bihari, complainant in person.
None for the Respondents-Department.

Order:

The reply dated September 18, 2006 to the application given to Shri Brij Bihari as well as the reply dated October 30, 2006 sent for consideration of this Commission has been seen. It is observed that the reply given is not correct and to the point. The department is required to give reply as to why the interim order of the Supreme Court dated July 20, 1983 in CWP No.3605 of 1983 was not implemented, according to which the services of the petitioner-complainant as on February 23, 1983 were directed to be maintained provided the post of Basket Ball Coach was available on that day. The reply was sought on various points that he had raised in connection with this order and the reply supplied does not meet the requirement. The Department is hereby directed to give a reply specific to the queries by March 9, 2007 and to file compliance report under due receipt on March 13, 2007.

Adjourned to March 13, 2007.

SD:
SD:
( Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj) ( Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner State Information Commissioner

PROF S S BINDRA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP 9665 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


Date of decision: 04.3.2011

Prof. S.S.Bindra and others -----Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others ----Respondents

And connected petitions being CWP No.1392 of 2009, CWP Nos.1268, 1297, 1324, 1932, 2661, 3803, 4583 to 4585, 4607, 4617, 7176, 7321, 8823, 9465, 9773, 10616, 11076, 11972, 12603, 12604, 12736, 12882, 13117, 14265, 14277, 14604, 14693, 15001, 15447, 15463, 15508, 15624, 15880, 16185, 16223, 16357, 16961, 17140, 17155,17163, 17400, 17545, 18837, 19087, 19152, 19256, 19501, 18508,
18575, 19596, 19693, 19699, 19749, 19841, 19908, 19935, 20036, 20225, 20226, 20296 to 20298, 20422, 20613, 20693, 20728, 20729, 20750, 20854, 21135 to 21137, 21159, 21240, 21241, 22449, 22673, 22736, 22818 and 23003 of 2010 AND CWP Nos.184, 345, 585, 838, 896, 897, 1001, 1304, 1386, 1429, 1495, 1618, 1782, 2065, 3391, 3464 and 3492 of 2011

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

Present:-
Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate (in CWP Nos.9665, 15463, 15508,
15624, 17545, 19087, 19256, 21159, 22818 of 2010 and 1495 and
3464/2011.
Mr. B.M. Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Anshul Joy, Advocate (in CWP Nos. 7321, 12882, 14693, 15001,
20296 to 20298, 21136 and 23003 of 2010 and 1429 and 3492 of 2011)
Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate (in CWP No.14265 and 19841 of 2010)
Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocate (In CWP Nos.7176, 8823, 12603 to 12604, 15880, 16961, 18837, 19152 of 2010.
Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate (in CWP No.16357/10),
Mr. R.D. Anand, Advocate (in CWP No.1297/10),
Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate
(in CWP No.17140/10)

Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate (in CWP Nos.19501, 20226, 21135,
21240 and 22449/10), Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate (in CWP No.10616, 20613 of 2010 and 184/11.

Mr. Atul Kaushik and Manjit Singh, Advocates (in CWP No.22673/10),
Mr. Anupam, Advocate (in CWP No.17155/10),
Mr. N.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate (in CWP No.20693/10),
Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Advocate (in CWP No.20422/10).
Mr. Kewal Kumari, Advocate (in CWP Nos.9465/10 and 1304/11),
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate (in CWP Nos.21241/10 and 3391/11.
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate (in CWP No.1386/11),
Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate (in CWP No.585/11),
Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate (in CWP No.1392/09),
Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate (in CWP Nos. 1932, 20728 and 20729 of 2010),
Mr. S.K. Tamak, Advocate (in CWP Nos.1324, 11972, 21137 and 22736 of 2010,
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate (in CWP Nos.19935/10 and 896/11.
Dr. Surya Prakash, Advocate (in CWP Nos.1268, 2661, 4583 to 4585,
4607, 4617 and 19908 of 2010) for petitioners.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for Panjab University,
Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.S. Rana, Adv. for Kurukshetra University,
Mr. Amrit Pal, Advocate for Guru Nanak Dev University,
Mr. N.R. Dahiya, Advocate and
Mr. Amit Rao, Adv. for Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. for UGC.
Mr. Ashwinie Bansal, Central Govt. Counsel.
Mrs. Kamla Malik, Central Govt. Counsel.
Mr. Rajdeep S. Cheema, Advocate for respondent Nos.7, 11 and 12 in CWP No.12736/10, for respondent Nos.8 and 10 in CWP No.13117/10,
for respondent No.7 in CWP No.16185/10,
for respondent Nos.7 and 10 in CWP No.18575/10,
for respondent No.6 in CWP No.19749/10,
for respondent Nos.5 and 6 in CWP No.20036/10
Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate
for respondent No.6 in CWP No.896/11,
Mr. S.C. Nagpal, Advocate
for respondent Nos.5 and 6 in CWP No.7321/10 and
for respondent No.6 in CWP No.12882/10.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 100 petitions mentioned above.

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, all the writ petitions involve common question relating to claim of the writ petitioners for revision of age of retirement to 65 years. The said claim is based on letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Government of India addressed to the University Grants Commission (UGC) followed by letter of the Government of India dated 11.5.2010 to the Education Secretaries of all State Governments and notification of University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010.

2. A bunch of petitions came up for hearing before learned Single Judge who vide order dated 4.10.2010 referred the matter to the Division Bench as follows:-

…….3. Since the final outcome of these cases is likely to have far reaching repercussions including some impact on other State services
also, it appears inter-alia, that the following important questions of law
need to be adjudicated by a larger bench:-

a) Whether the service conditions including the age of retirement prescribed in the statutory service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or under a statute can be deemed to have been amended by virtue of the Circular/Scheme dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Government of India?

b) Whether the Government of India is competent to command the State Governments/Universities to increase the age of retirement of a section of the State/University employees?

c) Whether the ‘States’ have any lawful authority to barge into the field of ‘Education’ when the subject matter is directly referable to Entry 66 of List I ‘Union List’ or Entry 25 of the List III ‘Concurrent List’ only?

d) What will be the impact of the Government of India Scheme or the UGC Regulations in the case of teachers working in the inter state Universities, like Panjab University, Chandigarh?

e) What is the scope of Statutory powers of UGC and whether such
powers would include the authority to lay down/prescribe the conditions of service including the age of retirement? 4. Admitted to D.B. Let the records of these cases be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for enlisting them before an appropriate Bench on 15.11.2010.

Accordingly, the matters have been placed before this Bench. Several other writ petitions filed after the order of reference have also been listed for hearing.

3. CWP No.9665 of 2010 has been treated to be the main petition on
suggestion of learned counsel for the parties and pleadings are being referred to from the said petition. Case of the petitioners is that they are teaching in different departments of Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU).

Their superannuation age is 60 years as per applicable rules. The Government of India appointed Sixth Pay Commission on 5.10.2006 to consider the demand of the Central Government employees for increase in salary and improvement of other service conditions. The said Commission gave its report on 24.3.2008 which was approved by the Union Cabinet on 14.8.2008. The UGC appointed an expert committee to consider the claim of the teachers in Universities and colleges for revision of pay scales and other allied issues headed by Prof. G.K.Chadha. The Committee gave its report recommending revision of pay scales and enhancement of age of superannuation to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers and to attract eligible scholars to the teaching profession to improve the standard of quality of higher education. The said Committee also recommended re-engagement of retired teachers upto the age of 70 years.

4. Based on consideration of the said report, the Government of India
vide letters dated 23.3.2007 conveyed its decision to revise age of superannuation of all persons holding teaching position as on 15.3.2007 to 65 years and also provided for re-employment of such teachers upto the age of 70 years. The said age was applicable to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers.” Thereafter, vide letter dated 31.12.2008, Annexure P.3, scheme for revision of pay scales was conveyed by the Ministry of HRD to the UGC. Therein, issue of age of superannuation also figured in para 8(f). The said para alongwith sub para (p) of para 8 are reproduced below:-

8. Other terms and conditions:
a) to e).

f) Age of Superannuation.
i)in order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of teachers in universities and other teaching institutions and the consequent vacant positions therein, the age of superannuation for teachers in Central Educational institution has already been enhanced to sixty five years
vide the department of higher education letter No.FNo.1- 19/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007 for those involved in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of
superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has already authorized the Central Universities, vide department of higher education DO letter No.F.1-24/2006 Desk (U) dated 30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of Vice chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70 years subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with
the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central Universities).

ii) subject to availability of vacant positions and fitness teachers shall also be re employed on contract appointment beyond the age of sixty five years upto the age of seventy years. Re-employment beyond the age of superannuation shall, however be done selectively for a limited period of
three years in the first instance and then for another further period of two years purely on the basis of merit, experience area of merit, experience, area of specialization and peer group review and only against available vacant positions without affecting selection or promotion prospects of
eligible teachers.

Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education.

p) Applicability of the Scheme:

i) This scheme shall be applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in all the Central Universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC.

The implementation of the revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions motioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this behalf.

Universities implementing this scheme shall be advised by the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC Regulations within three months from the date of issue of this letter.

ii) to iv) x

v) This scheme may be extended to universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of State Legislature, provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme subject to the following terms and conditions.

a) Finance assistance from the Central Government to State Governments opting to revise pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadre covered under the Scheme shall be limited to the extent of 80% (eighty percent) of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision.

b) The state Government opting for revision of pay shall meet the remaining 20% (twenty percent) of the additional expenditure from its own sources.

c) to f) x

g) Payment of central assistance for implementing this scheme is also subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of
Regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented by State Governments and universities and colleges coming under their jurisdiction as a composite scheme without any modification except in regard to the date of implementation and scales of pay mentioned herein above.
(emphasis supplied)

5. The UGC vide letter dated 28.2.2009, Annexure P.4 addressed to
Education Secretaries of all the State Governments suggested that the State Governments may initiate immediate action for implementation of scheme of revision of pay in a time bound manner. The letter also referred to the issue of enhancement of retirement age. The State of Punjab vide notification dated 2.9.2009 revised the pay scales of teachers and equivalent cadres in the universities and colleges of the State w.e.f 1.1.2006 (Annexure P.5) as per letter dated 31.12.2008, Annexure P.3 and also stated that the scheme will be applicable subject to acceptance of conditions mentioned in the said letter.

6. CWP No.16370 of 2009, Jagir Singh Kahlon and others v. State of
Punjab and another was filed in this Court seeking a direction for revision of age of retirement as per notification dated 31.12.2008 and this Court vide order dated 6.4.2010 directed the State Government to take a conscious policy decision.

Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.5.2010, Annexure P.7, the Ministry of HRD wrote to the State Governments about the issue of revision of pay scale. Referring to letter dated 31.12.2008, it was mentioned that the scheme could be extended to institutions under the State Governments “provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme”. It was further mentioned that as per the said letter, the State Governments are required “to implement the scheme as a composite one including the age of superannuation (mentioned in para 8(f) of this Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008), together with all the conditions specified or to be specified by University Grants Commission (UGC) by regulations and other guidelines.

7. Thereafter, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of standards in Higher
Education) Regulations, 2010 were notified vide notification dated 30.6.2010 published in Gazette of India dated 18.9.2010. The said regulations have been framed by UGC under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 and are applicable to Central as well as State Universities and affiliated colleges. Para 2 provides that qualifications for maintenance of standards in higher education shall be as provided in the Annexure. The Annexure contains, inter-alia, following provisions:-

2.1.0 The revised scales of pay and other service conditions including age
of superannuation in Central universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), as contained in Appendix-I.

2.3.1.The revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as provided in
Clause 2.1.0 above, may also be extended to Universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature and maintained by the State Governments, subject to the implementation of the scheme as a composite one in adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the MHRD letter No.F.1- 7/2010-U II dated 11 May, 2010 with all conditions specified by the UGC in these Regulations and other Guidelines.

Appendix I is letter dated 31.12.2008. Though, the Baba Farid University of Sciences, Faridkot revised the age of superannuation to 65 years, inspite of direction of the Central Government that assistance to the State Government will be applicable only if the pay scales were revised as per scheme which was “composite one” including the age of superannuation, the State Government and the State Universities failed to revise the age of superannuation to 65 years.

Accordingly, case is made out for issuance of direction to comply with the
mandate of the UGC by revising the age of superannuation to 65 years.

8. In the reply filed by the State of Punjab, the stand taken is that the
matter of revision of age of superannuation was referred to a Committee.

The said Committee in its meeting held on 29.6.2010 observed that there was no shortage of qualified teachers in the State and there was no need to enhance the existing age of retirement. Accordingly, the State Government applied for relaxation of instructions of the Central Government dated 11.5.2010 vide letter dated 10.8.2010. Letter of the Government of India only related to conditions for grant of financial assistance which is a matter between the State Government and the Central Government. Since the enhancement of age has serious financial
implications, the State Government has not adopted the revision of age.

The Central Government has not given any assistance after 1.4.2010. Letter dated 31.12.2008 is based on letter dated 23.3.2007 which was applicable to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers” and though as per letter dated 28.2.2009 followed by letter dated 11.5.2010, the same could be extended to the States and State universities, reimbursement was to be applicable only if the State Governments implemented the scheme “as a composite package
provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme”.

The consequence was not of automatic revision of age. The Regulations adopting letter dated 31.12.2008 were also accordingly limited in their applicability and the revised age was not automatically applicable unless specifically extended to the State Governments and State universities. Thus, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

9. Stand of the University is that as per service rules adopted by the
University, age of retirement was 60 and the said rules have not been challenged and thus prayer in the petition could not be accepted.

10. Stand of the UGC is that the revision of age was applicable only to
Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions under the purview of HRD and not to any employee of a college which is not funded and maintained by the UGC. However, the State Government could adopt the decision for revising the age of superannuation.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though revision of
age as per letter dated 23.3.2007 was initially applicable to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers”, the effect of letter dated 31.12.2008, para 8(p)(v) was to extend the same to all State universities and colleges also. The State Governments having taken financial assistance of the Central Government and having opted to the revised pay scales, could not reject revision of age of superannuation as the State governments had to implement the scheme contained in letter dated 31.12.2008 as a composite scheme without any modification.

In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on judgment of learned Single Judge of Patna High Court dated 20.8.2010 in CWP
No. 11348 of 2010 Dr. Sunity Pandey and others v. the State of Bihar and others and judgment of learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court dated 10.1.2011 in WP ( C) No.363 of 2010, Dr.Maheshwar Tiwary and others v. The State of Jharkhand and others. In the context of Panjab University, it was submitted that though the University was established under the State Act i.e. Panjab University Act, 1947, it became ‘inter state body corporate’ under the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. Maintenance and grants are to be shared and paid by concerned States as per directive of the Central Government. The Vice Chancellor of the University in the meeting held on 29.6.2010 informed that the University has been considered to be a Centrally funded institute under section 2(d) (iv) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI, 2006 Act). Reference has also been made to the opinion of the Attorney General dated 26.10.2010 as under:-

It cannot be forgotten that the Punjab University is one of the oldest Universities in the country being established in 1882 at Lahore as East Punjab University. After partition, the University was re-established in India on Ist October, 1947 and after working at different places, finally moved to Chandigarh in 1956. The Ministry of HRD is rightly concerned in seeing that this institution is not starved of funds.

A letter from Additional Secretary to Chairman UGC dated 1.11.2010 has also been referred to the following effect:-

2. The matter has since been revisited. The Central Government has obtained the opinion of learned Attorney General for India (copy enclosed) who has held that the earlier view of the Central Government, based on which the Central Government had indeed filed certain affidavits before courts of law in matters concerning Punjab University, was erroneous.
This opinion of the Attorney general for India paves the way to not only fund Punjab University for the purpose of expansion required for implementing the CEI Act 2006,but also enabling UGC to start meeting the financial needs of Punjab University.

Accordingly, it was submitted that though earlier, the Panjab University was held not to be Central or Centrally funded university in the judgment of this Court in Dr. A.C.Julka and others v. Punjab University and tohers, (2008) 7 SLR 198, the situation has now changed.

13. It was pointed out that the Central government in an affidavit filed
before Madhya Pradesh High Court in similar writ petitions has taken a stand that the scheme dated 31.12.2008 was automatically applicable to the States and State Universities for being eligible for appropriate Central assistance. Affidavit of the Central Government has been filed as Annexure P.4 in CWP No.16357 of 2010.

14. Learned counsel for the State and the State universities other than
Panjab University opposed the submission. It was stated that the decision of the Central Government dated 23.3.2007 to revise the age of superannuation to 65 years was applicable only to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers.” Letter dated 31.12.2008 provided that the scheme could be extended to States “provided State Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme.

Thus, till the States/State universities wished to adopt the scheme of
revision of age of superannuation, there was no automatic revision of age of superannuation. Letter dated 31.12.2008 was only addressed to UGC. Subsequent letter dated 20.2.2009 from the UGC to the State Governments was on the subject of reimbursement of finances involved. Similar is the position with regard to letter dated 11.5.2010. The 2010 Regulations also did not automatically revise the age of superannuation except in relation to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers.” In such a situation, it was for the State Governments and the State Universities to take a decision to revise the age of superannuation in absence of which, the age of superannuation was as prescribed in the applicable rules. View taken in the judgments of Jharkhand and Patna High Courts could not be followed in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Bharat Kumar and others v. Osmania University and others, (2007) 11 SCC 58 which has been followed by Division Bench of this Court in Dr. A.C. Julka. This being the position, in absence of conflict in the UGC Regulation and decision of the State, contention of Regulation being covered under Entry 66 of List I and thus, overriding the State legislation, did not arise as held in similar
situation by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in B. Bharat Kumar and by this Court in Dr. A.C. Julka. Distinction pointed out that when the issue was considered in B. Bharat Kumar and Dr. A.C. Julka, the decision was only executive decision and now the same has been formalized as a statutory provision by way of Regulation under section 26 of the UGC Act, is not significant. The Regulation itself limits the applicability of the revised age to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers”, leaving the issue of extension to other institutions as per letter dated 11.5.2010 (Regulation 2.3.1).

15. Learned counsel for the Panjab University submitted that the Panjab
University was not a Central university as earlier held by this Court in Dr.A.C.Julka and the revised age of superannuation was not automatically applicable. However, on account of certain developments, the issue whether it was Centrally funded was a debatable issue and matter in this regard was pending with the Central Government and the said university will abide by such decision as may be taken by the Central Government. At this stage, the Panjab University did not wish to take any particular stand whether it was centrally funded or not as the said issue is still to be decided by the Central Government.

16. Learned counsel for the Central Government stated that he has no
instructions in the matter.

17. In view of rival contentions noticed above, we proceed to deal with
the questions referred for our adjudication.

Re: (a) Deemed amendment to the statutory rules by virtue of scheme dated 31.12.2008.

18. The scheme dated 31.12.2008 refers to revision of age of superannuation vide letter dated 23.3.2007, which applies to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers.” As per sub para (p) of para 8, the scheme may be extended to other institutions who wish to adopt the same. Clause (g) of sub para (p) (v) provides that central assistance was subject to the scheme being implemented as composite scheme. Thus, the said scheme does not envisage automatic revision of age to all institutions unless the State Governments wish to adopt the same. If they do not wish to adopt the same, it may have ramification on central assistance being provided as mentioned therein.

Adoption of the said scheme in regulation does not change its character as the regulation also provides that the scheme does not automatically extend to all the institutions unless extended as per para 2.3.1. The matter was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to similar scheme dated 27.7.1998 and the scheme was held to be voluntary. The contention that the scheme must be implemented as a composite one, was rejected. Contention with regard to applicability of Entry 66 of List I was also rejected. We may quote below the relevant part of letter dated 27.7.1998 interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and relevant part of letter dated 31.12.1998 which we have to interpret for
comparison.

Letter dated 27.7.1998 Letter dated 31.12.1998

4. The payment of Central assistance for implementation of the scheme is
also subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be laid down in this regard by UGC by way of regulations, is implemented by the State Governments as a composite scheme without any modification except to the date of implementation and scales of pay as indicated above.

8(p)(v)(g). Payment of central assistance for implementing this scheme
is also subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of Regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented by State Governments and universities and colleges coming under their jurisdiction as a composite scheme without any modification except in regard to the date of implementation and scales of pay mentioned herein above.

Relevant observations are:-

13. The situation is no different in the present case also. The very language of the letter dated 27.7.1998 suggests that the scheme is voluntary and not binding at all. Further it is specified in the judgment of the Kerala High Court that the teachers had no right to claim a specific age because it suggested in the scheme which scheme was itself voluntary and not binding. The Court clearly observed that "the appellant
cannot claim that major portion of the scheme having been accepted by the Government, they have no right not to accept the clause relating to fixation of higher age of superannuation". The Court therein observed that it is a matter between the State Government on the one hand and the University Grants Commission on the other and it would be for the University Grants Commission to extend the benefit of the
scheme or not to extend the same depending upon its satisfaction about the attitude taken by the State Government in the matter of implementing the scheme. It was lastly clearly observed that as long as the State Government has not accepted the UGC's recommendations to
fix the age of superannuation at 60 years, teachers cannot claim as a matter of right that they were entitled to retire on attaining the age of 60 years.

14. In spite of our best efforts, we have not been able to follow as to how the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which has been approved by this Court is, in any manner, different from the factual situation that prevails here in this case. It is for that reason that we have extensively quoted not only the aforementioned letter dated 27.7.1998 but also the subsequent
letters and the further policy statement. Plain reading of all these is clear enough to suggest that the scheme was voluntary and it was upto the State Governments to accept or not to accept the scheme. Again even if the State Government accepted a part of the scheme, it was not necessary that all the scheme as it was, had to be accepted by the State Government.

In fact the subsequent developments suggest that the State Government has not chosen to accept the scheme in full inasmuch as it has not accepted the suggestions on the part of the UGC to increase the age of superannuation.

15. Once we take this view on the plain reading of the scheme, it would be necessary for us to take stock of the subsequent arguments of Mr. Rao regarding Entry 66 in the List I vis-à-vis Entry 25 in List III. In our opinion, the communications even if they could be heightened to the pedestal of a legislation or as the case may be, a policy-decision under Article 73 of the Constitution, they would have to be read as they appear
and a plain reading is good enough to show that the Central Government or as the case may be UGC also did not introduce the element of compulsion vis-a-vis the State Government and the Universities. We, therefore, do not find any justification in going to the Entries and in examining as to whether the scheme was binding, particularly when the specific words of the scheme did not suggest it to be binding and specifically suggest it to be voluntary.

16. Much debate was centered around the interpretation of the words "wish" and "gamut". In our opinion it is wholly unnecessary and we have merely mentioned the arguments for being rejected. Once the scheme suggested that it was left to the "wish" of the State Government, there will be no point in trying to assign the unnatural meaning to the word "wish.

Similarly, there would be no point in going into the interpretation of the word "gamut" and to hold that once the State Government accepted a part of the scheme, the whole scheme had to be accepted by the same as such would, in our opinion, be an unnecessary exercise.

17. In view of the plain and ambiguous language of the scheme, there would be no necessity on our part to attempt any interpretation. For the same reasons we need not consider the argumets based on the decisions in O.P. Singla, Maniklal Majudar, Chandrika Prasad Yadav and Dove Investments as they all pertained to principles of interpretation which exercise would have been necessary for us only if the language was
ambiguous. It is also not necessary for us to extensively consider Dove Investment's case as from the plain language of the scheme itself we find that it is not a mandatory scheme in the sense being binding against the State Governments.

18. For the similar reasons we do not see as to why the judgment in T.P. George's case is not applicable to the present case. A very serious argument was raised by the learned counsel that the judgment stood overruled by Yashpal's case.

We do not think so. Yashpal's case was on entirely different issue. There the controversy was relating to a legislation creating number of Universities. The question there was as to whether the State Government could create so many Universities and whether the legislation creating such Universities was a valid legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the subject of higher education was covered under Entry 66 of List I. Such is not the subject in the present case.

Here is a case where there is no legislation. Even if we take the scheme to the higher pedestal of policy statement under Article 73 of the Constitution, the scheme itself suggests to be voluntary and not binding and the scheme itself gives a discretion to the State Government to accept it or not to accept it. If such is the case, we do not see the relevance of the Yashpal's case in the present matter. Once this argument fails, the reference to the other cases which we have referred to earlier also becomes unnecessary. In our considered opinion all those cases relate to the legislative powers on the subject of
education on the part of the State Government and the Central Government. In the present case we do not have any such legislation for being considered. Where the scheme itself gives the discretion to the State Government and where the State Government uses that discretion to accept a part of the scheme and not the whole thereof, it would be perfectly within the powers of the State Government not to accept the suggestion made by the scheme to increase the age of
superannuation.

19. Learned counsel also argued, to a great extent, the desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to 60 or 62 as the case may be. We again reiterate that it is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing into the dangerous area of the wisdom of the Legislation. If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not increase it to 60 or as the case may be 62, it was perfectly justified into doing so.” (emphasis supplied)

19. As observed in the above judgment, the scheme itself having given
discretion for its acceptance even if the same was statutory, there was no conflict in the scheme and the decision of the State Government. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we respectfully dissent from the view taken by the Jharkhand and Patna High Courts as the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court could not be distinguished on the ground that earlier the scheme was non statutory while now it was statutory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed that even if the same was taken to be statutory, the same being voluntary and gave discretion to the State Governments to accept it or not, there was no question of conflict so as to
invoke Entry 66 of List I and to hold primacy of the scheme over the decision of the State Government. Giving of reimbursement was a different matter between the UGC and the State Government and condition referred to in para 8(p)(v) (g) did not have the effect of revision of age of superannuation by itself. Affidavit before the Madhya Pradesh High Court does not state that age of superannuation in all institutions stands revised automatically.

20. Accordingly, the question has to be decided in the negative to the
effect that the service conditions regarding age of retirement prescribed in
statutory service rules under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or under a statute cannot be deemed to have been amended by virtue of scheme dated 31.12.2008 except with regard to “Centrally funded higher and technical education institutions coming under the purview of this ministry in order to overcome the shortage of teachers.

Re: (b) and (c ): Jurisdiction of Government of India to direct State
Governments to increase the age of retirement and jurisdiction of the states on subject matters covered by Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III.

21. In view of our answer to Question (a), the said questions have become academic there being no conflict in the scheme framed by the Central Government and adopted by the UGC and the decision of the State on the issue of revision of age of superannuation, the said questions need not be answered. The matter is covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.Bharat Kumar and of this Court in Dr. A.C.Jhulka. It is well settled that if matter is covered by Entry 66 and the field is occupied by a Central legislation, the State legislation to the extent of repugnancy is void by virtue of Article 254. (Prof. Yash Pal and antoher v. State of Chhattisgarh and others , (2005) 5 SCC 420, State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 and Dr. Preeti Srivastava vs. State of MP, (1999) 7 SCC 120). We do not express any final opinion on the said questions.

Re: (d):
Impact of the scheme and the regulations on teachers working in inter state university like Panjab University.

22. The Punjab University is not a Central university as already held by
this Court in Dr. A.C.Jhulka. It is also not a centrally funded university under any law, though it has been stated that certain developments have taken place and the matter is yet to be decided by the Central Government. As per statutory provisions of the Punjab University Act, 1947 and the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, the University cannot be treated as a Central university or the centrally funded university. If the Central Government accepts the Punjab University to be centrally
funded, the scheme for revision of age of superannuation may become applicable.

Till such a decision is taken, the scheme cannot be held to have become
applicable. The Panjab University will, thus, stand on the same footing as other State universities. The questions is answered accordingly.

Re(e) :
Scope of statutory power of UGC to lay down service conditions
regarding age of retirement.

23. Since neither any cause of action has arisen in this regard nor any
argument has been addressed by either party and it is not necessary to go into this question for decision of the writ petitions, we do not express any opinion on the said question.

24. As a result of above, the scheme dated 31.12.2008 neither being
automatically applicable to States and States universities not having been extended to them, claim of the writ petitioners for a direction for revision of age of superannuation cannot be accepted.

25. The writ petitions are dismissed. Interim orders, wherever granted, stand vacated. It is made clear that this order will not debar the revision of age by the State Government/State Universities or the Punjab University.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge



Some other Colleges in Chandigarh
MCM DAV College for Women, Chandigarh
Sector 36-A
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh
Shree Sai Institute of Education and Technology (SSIET), Chandigarh
No. 110, Sector 40-A
Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh
Vision Academy, Chandigarh
SCO 207, Sector 36-C,
Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh
Government College of Commerce and Business Administration (Sector 19B), Chandigarh
Sector-19B
Chandigarh (District )
Chandigarh
Industrial Training Institute (ITI Women), Chandigarh
Sector 11
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh


Bhai Gurdas Group, Sangrur

Students voice
Write to us giving good and bad things about your college, we will publish it on this site. email us at punjabcolleges @ gmail.com (without spaces)
© www.punjabcolleges.com : Engineering Colleges and deemed Universities in India      Disclaimer