Central Information Commission
Yatendra Pal Singh vs National Council For Teacher Education on 14 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NCTED/A/2019/145500 &
CIC/NCTED/A/2019/144698
Dr. Yatendra Pal Singh ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher
Education, RTI Cell, G-7, Sector - 10,
Near Sector 10 Metro Station, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/06/2021
Date of Decision : 14/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
File No. RTI CPIO Reply First FAA Order Second
Appeal Appeal
145500 07.06.2019 N.A 23.07.2019 08.08.2019 11.09.2019
144698 07.06.2019 N.A. 23.07.2019 08.08.2019 21.08.2019
1
CIC/NCTED/A/2019/145500
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 07.06.2019 seeking the following information:
"Provide authorized Document/Rule/Norm/ Government Order /written Statement which justify Equal Status between teaching courses i.e. Bachelor of Physical Education and Diploma in Physical Education."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2019. FAA's order dated 08.08.2019 directed R C Chopra, PIO(Regulation), NCTE to furnish the appropriate reply to the applicant within 7 days from the receipt of the order.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/NCTED/A/2019/144698 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 07.06.2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Provide true copy of authorized Document/Rule/Norm/Government Order which justify Equal or different Status of the three courses i.e. Bachelor of Education(B.Ed.), Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.)and Diploma in Physical Education(D.P.Ed),
2. Provide true copy of authorized paper/document/G.O. which justify Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) and Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed) are qualification in Teaching."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2019. FAA's order dated 08.08.2019 directed R C Chopra, PIO (Regulation), NCTE to furnish the appropriate reply to the applicant within 7 days from the receipt of the order.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Priyank Jain, Section Officer & PIO (Regulations) present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired clarification from NCTE regarding equivalence of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.). He further stated that moreover, he has already provided evidence and the order of the concerned Court wherein it has been held that Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) are the same yet NCTE is not taking any action in this regard. He furthermore argued that NCTE has the power to relax the conditions of equivalence and narrated the ordeal being faced by him in the face of unemployment and financial hardships. He lastly prayed for directions to be ordered in this regard i.e for the CPIO to state in clear Yes or No terms whether Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) is equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.).
The PIO submitted that adequate clarification with respect to the queries raised in the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant through their online portal on 25.01.2021 and a subsequent letter sent prior to the hearing dated
02.06.2021. He further tendered his unconditional regret and submitted that even though his predecessors R C Chopra and P K Yadav could not reply to the RTI Application at the relevant time, after the superannuation of P K Yadav on 28.02.2020, Ravindra Singh took over as the CPIO but due to huge work load and the COVID lockdown imposed immediately thereafter, the instant RTI Application remained unattended. He further submitted that subsequently, after taking due note of the various strictures issued by this bench since January 2021 in similar cases, a stock of all the pending online RTI Applications including the instant one was taken and disposed of expeditiously by Ravindra Singh on 25.01.2021. He furthermore submitted that he has been assigned the charge of the Regulation Section only recently and upon receipt of the notice of hearing, he has also facilitated the Appellant with an appropriate reply to the RTI Application.
3In response to the contentions of the Appellant, the PIO explained that he is not in a position to provide any definitive clarifications or resolve the grievance of the Appellant. However, upon the insistence of the Appellant, the PIO explained that as per his knowledge Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) cannot be equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Similarly, he stated that the Court order that the Appellant is referring to has to be read and understood in terms of the context and he is not well versed to comment on the same but is aware of the fact that the Chairperson, NCTE has the powers to relax conditions of eligibility only on a reference received from the concerned State Government citing the interest of a larger community of persons.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the PIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and deductions to be provided based on a speculative query, yet the PIO has informed about the relevant regulations to the Appellant.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part 4 of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." Emphasis Supplied Moreover, the contentions of the Appellant as well as the relief sought during the hearing were in the nature of dispute resolution or seeking to redress an administrative grievance, both of which is outside the scope of the adjudication of the Commission under the RTI Act.
It will be relevant here to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes." Emphasis Supplied While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." Emphasis Supplied 5 The Commission however empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advices him to pursue the matter as advised by the CPIO during the hearing with the concerned State Government through proper channel.
Further, the Commission takes grave exception to the fact that no reply was provided to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act by none of the then PIOs. Even further, as it appears from the records, the FAA's direction issued to R C Chopra, then PIO (Regulation), NCTE to provide a reply to the instant RTI Application also remained unheeded. The said omission of R C Chopra, then PIO (Regulation), NCTE amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
R C Chopra is hereby directed through the present CPIO to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The written submissions of R C Chopra, then PIO along with supporting documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present PIO should ensure service of this order to R C Chopra, then PIO under due intimation to the Commission for timely compliance of the above directions.
ADVISORY A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar nature of cases dealt with by this bench in the recent past is that a number of RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on various policy matters of NCTE. It will be in the best interest of NCTE to explore the viability of introducing a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought for clarifications can be identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.6
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7