Central Information Commission
Rahul Malhi vs National Council For Teacher Education on 30 September, 2024
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/NCTED/A/2023/644619
Rahul Malhi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Council for Teacher
Education,
Dwarka, Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 11.08.2023 FA : 28.08.2023 SA : 13.09.2023
CPIO : 22.08.2023 FAO : 05.09.2023 Hearing : 20.09.2024
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please provide the detail information/certified copies of guidelines laid down by NCTE Delhi for the conduction of TET-II/CTET-II (VI-VIII) for Additional/Optional Subjects or Subject Teachers i.e., Computer Science and Information Technology (IT).
(ii) Please provide the detail information/certified copies of guidelines laid down by NCTE Delhi for the conduction of TET-II/CTET-II (VI-VIII) for Page 1 of 6 Additional/Optional Subjects or Subject Teachers i.e., Sanskrit, Art/Craft, Music, Dance, Sports, Yoga.
(iii) Please disclose the information on the applicability of TET-II/CTET-II (VI-VIII) for additional/optional Subject Teachers i.e., Computer Science, Information Technology (IT), Sanskrit, Art/Craft, Music, Dance, Sports, Yoga."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"i-iii: The applicant may refer TET guidelines dated 11.02.2011, 09.04.2013, 22.05.2014 and 09.06.2021 which are self-explanatory and available at the following links:
http://www.ncte.gov.in/Website/TETGuidelines.aspx.
The NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations are also available on NCTE website: www.ncte.gov.in"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 05.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.09.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Sidharth, SO & Rep. of CPIO along with Punit Sahni, then CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Commission took on record the written submissions of the Appellant dated 12.09.2024 wherein he has argued at length stating inter alia that the TET guidelines, NCTE regulations referred to by the CPIO do not apply to the information sought for in the RTI Application and that the CPIO ought to state the URLs for the actual/applicable information on affidavit so that if found false, he can file a FIR against the authorities etc. Page 2 of 6
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant as well as invited the attention of the bench to their written submission of 11.09.2024, wherein all the replies provided to the Appellant were enclosed, including the latest one sent on 09.09.2024.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that considering the clarification based RTI queries raised by the Appellant, the CPIO's reply cannot be called into question. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was 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.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' Page 3 of 6 in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Page 4 of 6 Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. Furthermore, as regards the contentions of the Appellant contained in the written submissions, he is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....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) dated 30.11.2017 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."
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 Page 5 of 6 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
10. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter.
11. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 30.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
National Council for Teacher Education,
CPIO, RTI Cell,
G-7, Sector -10, Near Metro Station,
Dwarka, Delhi -110075
2. Rahul Malhi
Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)