Central Information Commission
B Surendar vs Ut Of Puducherry on 25 February, 2026
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/638578
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/638578
B Surendar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Directorate of School
Education (Govt. of ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Puducherry), Puducherry
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.07.2024 FA : 28.07.2024 SA : 29.08.2024
CPIO : 26.07.2024 FAO : 26.08.2024 Hearing : 20.02.2026
Date of Decision: 20.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I am residing at the address given in this application i have completed 10th Std SSLC new pattern of School public examination by Se of pass in 10th Std SSLC certificate i have joined and completed two years foundation course examination during the academy &12th) in the Annamalai University Chidambaram by following School Education Rules as same as Pre university course i have atta my request application along with 10th Std SSLC (DGE) Page 1 of 5 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/638578 mark lists, two years foundation course examination mark lists and Transf reference and information.
1. i sincerely request PIO of Directorate of School Education Higher Secondary Wing of Puducherry to evaluate my 12 year certificate PUC equivalence certificate for two years foundation course examination certificate conferred during the academic year 200 University U/s 6(1) or 6(3) as per time stipulated U/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 As the same 12th Std equivalence certificate is already issued by DSE HSW Puducherry to another student of Annamalai University ready reference and the information requested is required on urgent and essential basis pertaining to my life and liberty Madipakkam Chennai - 91 9841452115"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Reply:- With reference to your online Form-1 Application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005, it informed that the evaluation of certificates does not come under the ambit of RTI.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 26.08.2024 observed as under:-
Reason for Appeal: Not satisfied with the reply received from the PIO The Appeal petition dated 28.07.2024 filed by Thiru. B. surendar, Puducherry, against the Form-1 dt. 04.07.2024 was taken up for disposal on 20.08.2024. The applicant has sought equivalence certificate from the PIO to validate his educational qualifications. The PIO has furnished the reply on 26.07.2024 stating that seeking of equivalence certificate does not come under the ambit of RTI Act, Page 2 of 5 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/638578 2005. The appellant has filed this appeal stating that not satisfied with the reply furnished by the PIO.
On perusal of the appeal and comments, it is seen that the reply furnished by the PIO is in order. Right to Information Act, 2005 is not a grievance redressal forum. The applicant may seek the required equivalence certificate through proper procedure (representation) prescribed for it. With this the appeal may be disposed of.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.08.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Dr. V.G. Sivagami, Jt. Director- participated in the hearing.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him till date. He averred that he had equivalence certificate and same has not been provided till date.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him till date. She averred that the Appellant si not from Puducherry and the equivalence certificate cannot be issued by Directorate of School Education, Puducherry and the Appellant should approach Tamil Nadu Board for the same. A written submission dated 13.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..5. A reply to the RTI application dated 26.07.2024 was given to the applicant in which the PIO has informed that evaluation of certificates does not come under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005.Page 3 of 5
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/638578
6. The Applicant has preferred a first appeal for the same application dated 28/07/2024 once again requesting equivalence certificate as information U/s 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
7. On perusal of the appeal and comments from the PIO, the First Appellate Authority has informed that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not a grievance redressal forum and has mentioned that the applicant may seek the required equivalence certificate through proper procedure (representation) prescribed for it.
8. I most humbly submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1966-1967 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5840 of 2015) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER has held that the information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to. When there is an exclusive mechanism and procedure for obtaining equivalence certificate, the appellate ought not to have applied for information under the RTI Act, 2005
9. Further, now the appellant has prayed to the Second Appellate Public Information Authority to provide the same equivalence certificate.
10. I humbly submit that the appellant is requesting the evaluation of certificates which do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act. The appellant has misinterpreted RTI Act, 2005 and thus the appeal may be dismissed as baseless..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished Page 4 of 5 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/638578 by the Respondent as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO O/o. the Joint Director & PIO, Directorate of School Education (Govt. of Puducherry), Higher Secondary Wing, 100 Feet Road, Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605005.
2 B Surendar Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)