Central Information Commission
Alok Tripathi vs National Council For Teacher Education on 24 August, 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 Nos. :CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662824&
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662823
Alok Tripathi ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher Education,
RTI Cell, G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/08/2021
Date of Decision : 23/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The above mentioned Appeals are clubbed together as these are based on
same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/10/2019 & 27/10/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 06/12/2019 & 06/12/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 23/01/2020 & 23/01/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/02/2020 & 06/02/2020
1
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662824&
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/662823
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2019 seeking the following information;
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2019. FAA's order dated 23.01.2020 directed Sh. Naveen Malik, U.S./PIO (NRC), NCTE to furnish an appropriate reply to the applicant within 07 days in the matter from the date of issue of this letter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO till date in compliance of FAA's order.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Mamta Kukreti, S.O. & PIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no reply/information has been provided to him till date in compliance of FAA's order. He also narrated his grievance regarding fraudulent appointment of teachers in the said Institute in violation of NCTE norms which is detrimental to the future of aspirant candidates.
The PIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has been provided to the Appellant in compliance of FAA's order, as is evinced from the letter dated 28.02.2020, relevant portion of which is as under -
The Appellant has denied the receipt of averred reply, in response to which the PIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to resend a copy of said reply to the Appellant through email at his email id [email protected].
Further, upon query from the Commission regarding delay, the PIO tendered her unconditional regret and pleaded lack of knowledge on the plea that she was not holding charge of designated PIO at the time of receipt of RTI Application.
Lastly, the PIO apprised the Commission that as regards the audit reports/balance sheets as sought for at point no. 4, such information are usually available on the website of the Institutes. Also while rebutting the contentions of the Appellant, 3 she added that appointment of teachers are done by the concerned State Government in consonance with the norms of NCTE and in such appointments , the NCTE has no role to play.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission is baffled with the fact that no reply was provided to the Appellant by the then CPIO, NCTE within the stipulated time frame as per the RTI Act and also the fact that no substantial explanation for such delay was tendered by the PIO during hearing only shows the disdainful approach of NCTE, New Delhi office in dealing with RTI matters; which is nothing but unwarranted obstruction of Appellant's right to information and also amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Now, therefore the concerned the then CPIO, NCTE (designated at the time of receipt of instant RTI Application) is hereby directed through the present PIO, NCTE to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for his prima facie failure to provide reply to the Appellant coupled with relevant information. The written submissions of the concerned CPIO, NCTE along with supporting documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. If any other official is responsible for having caused the said omission, the concerned CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to such other persons and ensure that their respective explanations in this regard is also sent to the Commission.
Mamta Kukreti, S.O.& PIO, NCTE is hereby directed to ensure service of this order to the concerned then CPIO of NCTE, NRC under due intimation to the Commission for timely compliance of the above directions.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission also notes from the perusal of facts on records that the denial of information by the CPIO on point no. 1 being confidential in nature and further denial on point no. 4 of RTI Application with the plea of being third party's information was not appropriate as per the provisions of RTI Act. Here the information sought for regarding the documents submitted by the Institute for seeking NCTE recognition and also the audit reports of the Institute should ordinarily be available in the public domain as it is warranted to ensure probity and transparency in the functioning of the averred Institute. In this 4 regard, the Commission finds the submissions of the PIO regarding the information sought being personal in nature to be tenable only to the extent where the relevant documents contain personal particulars of the teachers/non- teaching staff and students.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the PIO to firstly resend a complete copy of the letter dated 28.02.2021 with enclosures to the Appellant and along with it a revised reply to the RTI Application shall also be sent against points no. 1 & 4 wherein, the CPIO will indicate the specific website hyperlink where the information sought for at point no. 4 in the RTI Application is available. Further, against point no. 1 of RTI Application, the CPIO shall provide a copy of the relevant available documents to the Appellant after redacting the personal particulars of third parties i.e. teachers/non-teaching staff/managing committee/students etc. if any that may figure in the relevant documents disclosure of which will stand exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act will be redacted by the PIO in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant through speed/registered post as well as via email by the PIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
However, the information sought for at points no. 5 & 6 do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarification from the CPIO based on speculative queries. Here 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.
His attention is also 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 5 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 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) Further, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant regarding alleged appointment of teachers and advise him to pursue this matter through proper channel.
Lastly, the reply given by CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for at points no. 2 &3 of RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
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 / 6