Central Information Commission
Prabhat Kumar vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 28 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/643019
Prabhat Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Board of
Secondary Education, Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.07.2024 FA : 13.08.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 13.08.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision: 28.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Kindly provide the at present list of working teachers with their designation of S R DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL AFFLICTION CODE 330114 as per CBSE record
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The desired information in respect of Sita Ram DAV Public School, Pupri Sitamarhi Distt Bihar843320 (CBSE Affiliation No. 330114) as per norms of Page 1 of 4 CBSE, availability of records/information and provisions of the RTI Act 2005 is/are furnished below:
As per available records, the latest available Staff Statement as furnished by the school for the year 2021-22 in the context of the concerned school is enclosed for information.
Besides, the present staff details have been declared and uploaded by the concerned school on its official website. The applicant may visit the given website or the following website link of the concerned School and obtain the desired information:
Website: http://srdavpupri.org/ Link: http://srdavpupri.org/ACF50813-80CC- 47E7-B816-72DC22D44C78/CMS/Page/Teaching-Staff The school has been advised to indicate the designations of the school staff in the list displayed on its website."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Seema Khakha and Pankaj Ksettry, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent did not furnish the latest list of working teachers, as sought in the RTI application. Moreover, the list did not contain the designations of the teachers. He further alleged that certain names were incorrectly mentioned in the list.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia while endorsing their initial reply, relied upon their latest written submissions dated 21.07.2025, extracted below:
Page 2 of 4"As part of suo motu disclosure in accordance with Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 and in the light of Sl. No. 5 of CBSE Circular 03/2021 dt. 05.03.2021 available on the given CBSE website/link, the affiliated schools have to upload details of its teachers in the school with qualifications on its website.
Website: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras Link: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Circulars/Circular3.pdf Therefore, the Appellant was informed to refer to the website/link of the concerned school for obtaining the desired information.
As far raising or redressal of grievance/complaint if any in this regard, the Appellant may approach the office of the concerned District Education Officer/State Education Department/Directorate of Education, where the School is located. The Schools are primarily under the regulation of the concerned State Govt. which has duties to ensure that the schools under its recognition are complying with the conditions properly including extant rules and provisions contained in RTE Act-2009."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO, as per records maintained under their custody. Besides, with respect to the appellant's contention regarding inconsistency in the names mentioned in the list furnished by the respondent, the Commission observes that the same is not substantiated with any evidence. No further action is not warranted in this matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 28.07.2025 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Central Board Of Secondary Education, CPIO, RTI Branch, "Shiksha Kendra", Headquarter, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi -110092 2 Prabhat Kumar Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)