Times
of India: New Delhi: Saturday, 14 March 2015.
The
Directorate of Education, complain activists, has evasion down to a fine art.
Activists using RTI to obtain collated data that ought to be available with the
DoE headquarters have had their applications pointlessly forwarded to the
district and zonal offices and schools - even private ones - for replies. The
result: no response at all, a deluge of paperwork or information so scattered,
it's impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from it.
"They
can transfer applications to another public body if they don't have information
but HQ transfers blindly," says laywer-activist Khagesh Jha. He'd sought
land allotment letters of minority schools. "HQ transferred to the
districts and they, to zonal offices. I'm getting responses saying the
information is "bulky" - each document is no longer than four pages -
and that I should visit each zone and examine it personally. That's 28 trips.
This defeats the provision."
The DoE
transfers queries even to private schools though it's well-known they aren't
covered by RTI. Mohit Goel, another activist, had filed a query on complaints
related to nursery admissions in private schools. "Complaints are
registered with the directorate but the query was sent to the individual
schools who then replied RTI doesn't apply for them," says Goel. In case
of government schools, he's received replies that, taken together, were
"junk or camouflaged." "While private schools are outsideRTI,
the law empowers the DoE to collect information from them using provisions in
any existing act - such as the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 - but
it chooses not to use that power," says Jha who started filing questions
under the Delhi RTI Act 2001 (instead of RTI Act 2005) because "that has
no provision of transfer." "But the DoE transfers even these
queries."
Rajiv Kumar
of city NGO, Pardarshita believes this practice began when "Heads of
school were made APIOs (assistant public information officers)."
"That was done to make filing queries easier. Applicants could submit at
the nearest school instead of going to districts offices." Kumar had filed
a query on complaints on Right to Education Act violations registered through
the grievance redress system. "It was addressed to the district office as
complaints are registered with and arguments heard by the district's DDE
(deputy director, education). That was sent to the zones that keep no such
record," Kumar says.
Activists
also see this as an appalling waste of resources. "To have 200 schools
reply individually when that data can fit on a single sheet is absurd. As Rs.17
per speed-post, you have spent Rs.3,400 and wasted paper," adds Kumar.
Then, filing
appeals becomes difficult; for each level of administration, there's a different
appellate authority. "For schools, zones and districts, it's the regional
director, education. If all districts refuse to reply, you have to file 13
separate appeals and one more challenging the transfer itself," explains
Jha. For queries filed under RTI Act 2005, the appellate authority is the
Central Information Commission; for Delhi RTI Act 2001, it is the Public
Grievance Commission. If DoE also needlessly forwards queries to aided schools.
"In their case, the principal is PIO and manager, the first appellate
authority. In short, you won't get anything."
"If the
department placed more documents in public domain, the number of queries would
automatically reduce. It doesn't and behaves like a post office when queries
are filed. They don't even read the questions," complains Jha. To test the
system, he'd sought the 2012 Shailaja Chandra Committee report (on review of
the DSEAR 1973), even though it's available online. He says the reply turning
down his request said, "The report is under consideration."
.JPG)
.JPG)
