Central Information Commission
Shyam Sunder Jaiman vs National Council For Teacher Education on 10 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 No : CIC/NCTED/A/2020/600312
Shyam Sunder Jaiman ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher
Education, RTI Cell, Northern Regional
Committee, G-7, Sector 10, Dwarka, New
Delhi - 110075. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/07/2021
Date of Decision : 06/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 06/12/2019 & 13/12/2019
First appeal filed on : 22/11/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 19/12/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.10.2019 seeking the following information:
1-"In Rajasthan how much B.SC, B.Ed, BA, B.Ed, collage are recognized with NCTE in 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2018-19, 2019-20. List of recognized B.SC, B.Ed college in this 4 year.
2- In 2019-20 list of recognized B.SC B.Ed, B.A, B.Ed College in Dausa (303303) Rajasthan list with recognized no order no or file no 3- As per Rajasthan PTET 2019 list college no428c003 impulse college of education are recognized with NCTE if yes send order copy or order meeting detail copy .If not or rejected or under process send meeting copy. 4- If Impulse College of education are recognized with you send copy of teaching or non teaching staff detail with his degree and aadhar no."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.11.2019.
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 06.12.2019 &13.12.2019 stating as under:
In regard to his first appeal, FAA heard the matter on 10.12.2019 and directed the PIO (NRC), NCTE to furnish the appropriate reply to the applicant within 7 days from the date of this letter.
The PIO (NRC), NCTE provided a reply dated 10-13.12.2019 in compliance with the FAA's order stating as under:
1. "As per record, the Institution Impulse College of Education Dausa,, Street Number-NII-11, Village- Dausa, Post Office-Dausa, Tehsil/Taluka-Dausa, Town/City-Dausa, District-Dausa, State- Rajasthan, Pin Code-303303 was granted recognition for B.A.,B.Ed./B.Sc., B.Ed. course of four year duration 2 with annual intake of 100 from the academic session 2017-2018 vide by NRC, NCTE vide order No.NRC/NCTE/NRC APP-11047/B.A. ,B . Ed./B. S c .,B.Ed./269th Meeting(Part-5)/2017 dt. 02.05.2017 (Copy of Recognition order enclosed). Hence, the institution is treated as recognized starting from the academic session 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 and recognition to B.A.,B.Ed./B.Sc.,B.Ed. course of this institution is continuing.
2. The faculty list submitted by the institution along with letter no. शैि िणक ि तीय/2017/3367 dt. 27/4/2017 of provisional recommendation of selection committee issued by Deputy Registrar, Rajasthan University, Jaipur submitted by the institution is enclosed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Rajesh Borkar, RO & PIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application to state that the information provided to him by the PIO, NCTE, NRC was misleading as the name of the institute referred by him in the RTI Application did not figure in the list of recognized colleges and it was only in February 2020 when he received a revised reply from the PIO, NCTE, WRC, the name of the institute was included in the list of recognized colleges and yet there was no affiliation number assigned to the averred college which is a pre-requisite for granting NCTE recognition. He vehemently agitated on the point that the wrong and delayed information provided by the PIO, NCTE, NRC has been detrimental to his daughter's academic pursuit.
The PIO assured that the then PIO would have provided the reply to the RTI Application after perusing the requested information on the website and that he is not in a position to comment any further regarding the basis on which the reply was provided by the then PIO. He further explained that the revised reply provided by the PIO, WRC is not in any way meant to mislead the Appellant as the RTI Application was filed online and there was re-allocation of jurisdiction of the Rajasthan State to WRC, subsequent to the re-allocation, the PIO, WRC has disposed of the RTI Applications pertaining to the colleges within the jurisdiction 3 of WRC. Lastly, he clarified that granting affiliation to the colleges is within the ambit of the concerned State University and not the NCTE.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the then PIO, NRC prima-facie failed to provide a timely reply to the instant RTI Application. The said omission of the then PIO amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The then PIO, NRC is now hereby directed through the present PIO, NRC to show- cause as to why penal action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The then PIO is also directed to respond to the allegations of the Appellant that misleading information was provided to him regarding the recognition granted to the Impulse College of Education, Dausa as name of the said college did not figure in the list of recognised colleges at the time of receipt of the reply dated 06.12.2019 and it was added only much later in the year 2020 when the jurisdiction was shifted to NCTE, WRC.
The written submissions of the then PIO on the above counts, along with supporting documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present PIO should ensure service of this order to the then PIO under due intimation to the Commission for timely compliance of the above directions.
Further, the issues raised by the Appellant questioning the veracity of the recognition granted to the averred college by NCTE without being granted affiliation are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending 4 consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another 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) dated30.11.2017 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) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
With the above observations and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:
Then PIO (as on 22.10.2019, 06.12.2019 & 13.12.2019) NCTE, NRC
--(For strict compliance of above directions) 6