Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ajay Kumar Sinha vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 30 March, 2026

                             के    य सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/101178

AJAY KUMAR SINHA, Advocate                       .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
THE CPIO
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
RTI CELL, INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX,
SECTOR - 23, PHASE-I, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI - 110077               .... तवाद गण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    24.03.2026
Date of Decision                    :    24.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    17.09.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    NA
First appeal filed on               :    03.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    NA
2nd Appeal dated                    :    06.01.2025



Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2024 seeking the following information:

"उपरो त वषयक म म ीमती अंजना घोष, जो आपके बोड से स ब ध व यालय, अ वैत मशन हाई कूल, पो- म नयारपुर, शवधाम, ब सी, िजला बाँका, बहार (CBSE Aff. No.330344, School No.65342) म कायरत थी, के स ब ध म सूचना अ धकार अ ध नयम 2005 के तहत न न जानका रयाँ उपल ध कराने का नवेदन है :-

1. ीमती अंजना घोष ने अ वैत मशन हाई कूल म श का के प म कब योगदान दया ?

2. ीमती अंजना घोष अ वैत मशन हाई कूल म श का के प म कब तक कायरत रह ं ?

3. ीमती अंजना घोष अ वैत मशन हाई कूल म अं तम कस वेतनमान पर कायरत रह ं ?"

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2024. The FAA order is not on record.

3. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Shri K Ranjan (client of Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha) present through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kshettry, US/CPIO present in person.

4. Written statements of the CPIO are taken on record.

5. On being queried by the Commission, the Appellant replied at the outset the Appellant is an advocate by profession who has filed RTI application on behalf of his client, Shri K Ranjan to seek the requested information. Shri K Ranjan stated that desired information has not been provided by the CPIO and FAA so far. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission.

6. CPIO invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written statement by, inter alia, stating as under -

"...1. The appellant filed offline RTI request on 17.09.2024 which was registered on 20.09.2024. The reply containing available information was issued to the appellant on 18.10.2024 through Speed Post Consignment No. ED652831835IN dt. 18.10.2024 on the postal address provided by him in his RTI request.

2. As part of suo motu disclosure in accordance with Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 and in the light of Chapter 2 Clause 2.4 (2.4.9) of CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, 2018 the affiliated schools have to upload latest details of teachers (comprising of name, designation and qualifications) working in the school, on its website.non-teaching staff should be appointed by the schools on pay scales and allowances prescribed by the Appropriate Government, where the school is located. CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws can be referred at the given link: Website: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/ Link:

https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Home/Information xxx

5. Since, CBSE is not an employer of the employees/staff employed in the affiliated schools, the desired information does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office. Therefore, desired information is not available in this office.

The desired information relating to such service matters is not maintained or compiled in this office. Providing such information would require collection and compilation of data from individual affiliated schools, which is not maintained by CBSE in the normal course of its functioning.

6. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, a Public Authority is not required to create or compile information which is not available on record, particularly where doing so would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority, as contemplated under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. Under the RTI Act, 2005, Public Information Authorities are not obligated to interpret queries, conduct research, deduce, collate, or generate information. Providing information in a format not maintained would result in disproportionate diversion of resources, which is restricted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005

8. Nevertheless, apart from the mandatory disclosures under Clause 2.4 (2.4.9) as stated above any staff-related information furnished voluntarily to CBSE by affiliated schools or furnished by the School in the past as per the previously applicable norms, is classified as service-related personal information of third-party individuals employed in private institutions. Any such voluntarily furnished staff/service related personal information is held by CBSE in a fiduciary capacity solely for the purpose of granting affiliation.

Disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it constitutes fiduciary information.

9. Furthermore, staff details fall within the ambit of service matter-related personal information of third parties. Disclosure of such information would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 prohibits disclosure of personal information unless it serves a larger public interest, which is not established in the present case."

7. CPIO while summing up his arguments stated that as a part of suo motu disclosure as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 read with Chapter 2, Clause 2.4 (2.4.9) of CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, 2018, the affiliated schools have to upload updated details of teachers (comprising of name, designation and qualifications) working in the school, on its website. Further, non-teaching staff is to be appointed by the schools on pay scales and allowances prescribed by the Appropriate Government, where the school is located. CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws can be looked into from its https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/ and https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Home/Information.CPIO explained that since, CBSE is not an employer of the employees/staff employed in the affiliated schools, the desired information does not fall under the jurisdiction of their office. This fact was informed to the Appellant through the averred written statement which was sent to the Appellant via speed post.

8. Appellant denied the receipt of a written statement of the CPIO. In response to which, the CPIO agreed to serve a copy of his written statement through email to the Appellant.

Decision:

9. Heard the parties.

10. After adverting to the facts and circumstances of this Second Appeal and hearing the parties, the Commission noted at the outset that the Appellant being an advocate by profession has sought the information on behalf of his client, Shri K Ranjan who appeared during hearing and admitted this fact per se. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in the case titled N. Sarvanan Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu SIC (W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017).

11. Notwithstanding the aforesaid and ignoring the above said aspect, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO as it Page 4 of 5 adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005.

12. Further, the written statement filed by the CPIO is self-explanatory, a copy of which has been served by the CPIO to the Appellant via email on conclusion of hearing, which is taken on record.

13. In the light of the above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter at this juncture.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri AJAY KUMAR SINHA Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)