Central Information Commission
Ashwani Kumar Kala vs Gnctd on 27 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MOHRD/A/2022/665071/GNCTD
Ashwani Kumar Kala .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
HIRA LAL JAIN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,
SADAR BAZAR, DELHI-110006. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2024
Date of Decision : 26.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.09.2022
CPIO replied on : 07.10.2022
First appeal filed on : 13.10.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.11.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.12.2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.09.2022 seeking the following information:
(1) a certified copy of the duly approved scheme of management specifying powers, rights, duties and responsibilities of managing committee and manager of the school.; and Page 1 of 6
(ii) a certified copy of the appointment letter issued to the PGT Commerce, i.e., myself, Ashwani Kumar Kala in August, 1995; and
(iii) a certificate certifying the nature of appointment that -
(a) the terms and conditions of services of the PGT Commerce (Ashwani Kumar Kala) are governed by the DSEA&R, 1973; (statutory appointment) Or
(b) by a written contract/agreement between both the parties namely the PGT Commerce (Ashwani Kumar Kala) and the Management of the school (contractual appointment).
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.10.2022 stating as under:
(i) For your queries point No. 1 please see Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Chapter-II Para 5.
(ii) & (iii) It is already with you which was enclosed with your petition before the Delhi School Tribunal.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 25.11.2022, held as under.
Please refer to your appeal letter No Nil dated 13.10.2022 received in our office on 18.10.2022, nomenclature as 1st appeal u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, it is informed that the reply was sent to you on 07.10.2022 (copy enclosed).
No further correspondence on the subject can be entertained.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Dr. Nirmal Kumar Jain, Principal/PIO accompanied with Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, H/c present in person.Page 2 of 6
Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and contended that complete requested information has not been furnished by the Respondent till date. He further contended that as per provisions of the DSEA&R, 1973 the powers, rights, duties and responsibilities of managing committee and manager of the school are to be governed by a duly approved scheme of the managements, however, no scheme has been formulated by the Respondent Public Authority which is in violation to the said Act. In this regard, he prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
A written submission dated 18.09.2024 filed by the respondent is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
"01. For your queries Point no. 1 please see Delhi School Education Act & Rules, Chapter-II Part-5.
"The Applicant had sought to know the rule position under the rules framed under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Rules are notified in the Official Gazette and are statutory in nature which are accessible to public as they are in public domain. The alleged information sought does not qualify as "information" under the RTI Act, 2005. Acts enacted by the Parliament or State Legislatures or the Rules framed thereunder as part of delegated legislation are notified in the Official Gazette. If the Applicant wants to access the rules it can do so from the official gazette or the bare Acts and Rules freely available in the market. The rules are not framed by the school. In this view of the matter, the question of the PIO/FAA supplying copies of the rules, which are statutory in nature, did not arise. The alleged information was sought malafide only with a view to harass the PIO/FAA."
02 & 03 Certified copy of the Appointment letter containing written agreement both the parties namely Mr. Ashwani Kumar Kala and Management of the School was issued to you on 02.08.1995 vide letter No. HLJ/B/55 dated 2.8.95 which was received by you on 02.08.1995. You also had enclosed the same letter with your petition before the Delhi School Tribunal."
Respondent stated that reply along with relevant information, as per its availability, has already been provided to the appellant. He further apprised the Commission that appellant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed multiple RTI applications seeking similar information, however, all his applications were duly replied on each occasion. For point No. 1, he stated that powers, rights, Page 3 of 6 duties and responsibilities of school managing committee/manager are governed by Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973 which is in public domain. For point No. 2 and 3, he emphasized that copy of offer of appointment letter dated 02.08.1995 wherein a handwritten acknowledgement of joining the respondent Public Authority was given by the appellant.
Respondent pleaded that this document was already provided to the appellant on earlier occasions also and at the behest of the Commission, a copy of the same was again handed over to the appellant during hearing, which is taken on record. Respondent added that offer of appointment letter is the only document issued for the appointment of appellant as PGT Commerce Teachers where duties and responsibilities are mentioned to be governed as per the rules of Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973. No other additional documents are available with them in this regard. He volunteered to provide an updated information against point No. 1 of RTI application to the appellant.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission at the outset directs the Respondent to provide updated information at point No. 1 of RTI application free of charge to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
As regards to point No. 2 and 3 of RTI application, the Commission notes from perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the parties that offer of appointment letter dated 02.08.1995 issued to the appellant has already been provided to him, no other additional information is available in their office. In this regard, the respondent handed over a copy of the said letter with due acknowledgement from the appellant during the hearing, which is taken on record.
The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the respondent against point No. 2 and 3 of RTI application as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. No further relief can be granted in the matter.Page 4 of 6
Be that as it may, the Commission notes that 16 cases of the Appellant have already been adjudicated by this Commission in the past against same/different Public Authorities which shows that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission, and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the Appellant, when the appellant is not in search of information but only trying to settle his baseless grievances against the department by filing multiple, vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals. His previous Second Appeals apparently appears to be inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further finds it expedient to note that the PIOs are already doing this assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a detailed manner. The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 is as under:
"...It is noted that the Appellant is a serving government employee under the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, while taking recourse to the RTI Act for his service-related matters, the Appellant is expected to approach the Public Authorities with clean hands. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy.Page 5 of 6
The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter."
In view of the above, the Respondent Public Authority is at liberty to take consequential action. Further, the Appellant, who is a serving teacher under the Respondent Public Authority, is also advised to make judicious and sensible use of his right to information in future.
With these observations, the instant appeal is disposed of.
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 FAA, MANAGER HIRA LAL JAIN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI-110006.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)