GIC slaps Rs 15K penalty on DEO

AHMEDABAD: It could have been as simple as handing over a copy of a government resolution (GR) pertaining to girl child education or ���Kanyakelavni���. But, even this seemed like a burden to Ahmedabad (Rural) district education officer (DEO).
Not quite agreeing with him, Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has slapped a penalty of Rs 15,000 on the DEO, for not furnishing information being sought under Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Laxman Rathod of Kathwada Road, Daskroi had under RTI sought from the DEO the norms of fixing fees in non-granted schools for girls education. Also, the norms of fees in non-granted schools for scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST) students.
Responding to GIC���s show-cause notice, acting on Rathod���s complaint, DEO submitted that information could not be furnished in time due to work pressure and due to 40 per cent vacancies in sanctioned staff.
The DEO further argued that principals of each of 518 secondary and higher secondary school in Ahmedabad rural area were designated as PIO���s. Hence, Rathod should have sought the information from any of these schools. As the DEO���s office had to deal with various matters of these 518 schools, heavy work pressure, information could not be furnished. Therefore, he prayed that the delay be condoned.
During the proceedings it was revealed that the information being sought by Rathod was in fact in a GR dated January 1, 1997. It specified the maximum fees to be charged by non-government, private secondary and higher secondary schools.
Also, reservations for students belonging to SC, ST and Baxi Panch, and fees that can be collected from girl students. This GIC felt should have been proactively disclosed. Moreover, the information sought by Rathod did not involve collection of information from different sources. It also pertained to larger public interest as there may not be uniformity in fees being charged.
���Giving a copy of this GR within 30 days couldn���t have been a huge burden!��� held GIC. While penalising the DEO, it ruled that his submissions cannot be held as satisfactorily reasonable, considering all that he had to do was to send a copy of the GR.