Central Information Commission
Dharmendra Chaturvedi vs National Council For Teacher Education on 11 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NCTED/A/2019/147560
Dharmendra Chaturvedi अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher
Education, RTI Cell, G 7, Sec 10,
Near Sector 10 Metro Station Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/06/2021
Date of Decision : 11/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : nil
CPIO replied on : 01/07/2019
First appeal filed on : 10/07/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 13/08/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/09/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated Nil seeking following information; The CPIO replied to the appellant on 01.07.2019 stating as follows:-
"......NCTE, New Delhi and to say that the institution viz CMJ University, Meghalaya is not recognized by ERC, NCTE for running any teacher education Programme."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2019. FAA's order dated 13.08.2019 directed the PIO(ERC), NCTE to furnish appropriate reply to the Appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Feeling 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: Represented by Pawan Kumar Bairagi, S.O. present through audio- conference.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the CPIO's reply as nowhere in his reply , specific averred session years were mentioned as sought for in his RTI application regarding the affiliation status of CMJ University .
The CPIO submitted that timely factual response has already been provided to the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act. He further submitted that in compliance of FAA's order, the earlier stand was reiterated by him vide letter 22.08.2019.2
Lastly, in response to Appellant's contention, the CPIO clarified that for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-11 , D.ed courses were not allowed as the University has never been recognized by NCTE and agreed to provide a revised reply on these lines to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought by the Appellant does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought clarification/ inference from the CPIO. 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, attention of the Appellant is drawn to a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] 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 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided a factual reply to assist the Appellant which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
Now, to allay the apprehension of the Appellant and considering proceedings during the hearing , directs the CPIO to provide a revised categorical reply giving the factual status regarding affiliation of CMJ University for the averred 3 session/period. The said reply/information should be given free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4