Central Information Commission
Durga Das vs Directorate Of Education on 26 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/618190
Durga Das .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO under RTI, Deputy Director of
Education-(Zone-V), Directorate
of Education (GNCTD), Gandhi
Memorial School Bhawan, Shyam
Lal College, Main G.T. Road, ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Shahadara, Delhi-110032.
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025
Date of Decision : 25.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 29.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
1. सभी SMC कैं डििेट के नामाांकन फामम की कॉपी। रिसीव किने की तािीख व समय सहित।
2. सभी रिजवम कैटे गिी सदस्यों के प्रमाण पत्र की कॉपी।Page 1 of 5
3. वो सभी क्लासरूम जजसमें वोहटांग िुई िै उस रूम के ड्यूटी टीचसम का नाम, पद, रूम नांबि व कक्षा नांबि।
4. सभी क्लास रूम में िुई वोहटांग शीट की कॉपी।
5. कांप्यूटि पि चढाया गया सभी सांबांधित िाटा औि रिजल्ट की सॉफ्ट कॉपी औि िािम कॉपी।
6. सभी वोहटांग किने वाले पेिेंट्स की ललस्ट जजन्िोंने वोहटांग की िै उसका ननम्नललखखत ववविण सहित ललस्ट
7. चुनाव प्रक्रिया कमेटी में शालमल लोगों की ललस्ट नाम व पद सहित।
8. चुनाव प्रक्रिया के दौिान शुरू से अांत तक ललए गए ननणमय की कॉपी।
9. एसएमसी चुनाव का रिजल्ट।
10. चुने गए एसएमसी सदस्यों की ललस्ट।
11. वोहटांग के दौिान सभी वोहटांग वाले कमिे में लगे सीसीटीवी कैमिे की रिकॉडििंग 1:00 तक अथवा तब तक जबक्रक उस क्लासरूम में टीचि या अन्य कोई मौजूद थे।
12. HOD के रूम की 12:00 बजे से लेकि 1:30 बजे तक की सीसीटीवी की रिकॉडििंग।
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.11.2023 stating as under:
"The sought information received from concerned school is attached herewith.
Answer 1 - The answer of first part of the question 1 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005. Out of the total 15 forms received, 1 one form was received on 13/10/2023 and 14 forms were received on 16/10/2023 during school time.
Answer 2 - The answer of question 2 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Answer 3 - The answer of question 3 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Answer 4 - The answer of question no. 4 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Answer 5 - The answer of question no. 5 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.Page 2 of 5
Answer 6 - The answer of question no. 6 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Answer 7 - The answer of question no. 7 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Answer 8 - The answer of question no. 8 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Ans 9. Copy of result enclosed.
Ans 10. Copy of list of SMC members enclosed. Ans 11. The answer of question No. 11 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) under RTI Act 2005.
Ans 12. The answer of question No. 12 is exempted under section 8(1)(j) under RTI Act 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 29.01.2024, held as under:
"On perusal of relevant record made available, it is revealed therefrom that the PIO has provided the reply to the appellant within the stipulated time period as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005. Hence, no further action is warranted in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 12.11.2025 has been received from PIO, DDE, Zone V, District North East-II and same has bene taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..In reference to the File No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/618190, the reply of the RTI was submitted to the applicant via mail on dated 23.11.2023 and subsequently in the first appeal on dated 18.01.2024, the said RTI appeal was disposed of with no further action warranted vide order no. DE.3/RTI/FAA2023/142-143 dated 29.01.2024. (Copy is enclosed herewith)..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Geeta Rani, HOS, Vice Principal, Ms. Ankita Bharati, TGT, Shri Rohit Sharma, TGT- participated in the hearing.Page 3 of 5
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 02.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information sought has been wrongly denied under the garb of third-party information.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply has been duly provided to the Appellant. As regard the information sought at point No. 7 of the RTI Application the name of member of committee is already mentioned in the copy of result of SMC election which has already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the PIO.
10. Commission observes that information pertaining to the SMC election has been sought by the Appellant and is liable to be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The process of SMC election has to enjoy the confidence of the students and their parents. The disclosure of generic details of the reserved- category certificate is permissible, as it directly relates to ensuring transparency and fairness in the selection process.
11. It is a well-established principle that reservation-based selection necessarily requires verification of caste/category eligibility. In such circumstances, the fact of a candidate's eligibility under a particular reserved category constitutes information that forms part of the public record, especially when used for securing a post in public office.
12. Therefore, disclosure of such information is justified in the larger public interest as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. Transparency in this regard is essential to prevent the selection of ineligible (Kupatra / Page 4 of 5 कुपात्र) candidates in place of eligible (Supatra / सुपात्र) candidates and to ensure the integrity of the reservation system.
13. In view of foregoing, the CPIO is directed to furnish a revised reply with respect to point No. 2 of the RTI Application i.e. specifically furnish only certificate No., date of issuance of certificate, name and designation of issuing authority, issuance authority office address to the Appellant within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent should excise exempted information, if any, giving justification of the same.
14. FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority Regional Director of Education (East), Sarvodaya Co-Ed. Sr. Sec. School Building, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi - 110092 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)