Central Information Commission
Monu Seth vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 9 June, 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/CBSED/A/2019/148148
Monu Seth अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Board of Secondary
Education, RTI Cell, Shiksha Kendra
2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar,
Delhi - 110092. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/06/2021
Date of Decision : 09/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/05/2019
CPIO replied on : 21/06/2019
First appeal filed on : 22/06/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 22/07/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : nil
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2019 seeking following information;
"Despite the CBSE circular dated 6th February 2014, many of the schools and coaching institutes are openly flouting the rules and conducting classes within the school premises or during school hours. By outsourcing teaching responsibilities, the schools are putting a question mark on their very own role in educating children. Many of the schools have essentially been taken over by coaching institutes and they are charging exorbitant fees, ranging from 6 to 9 lakhs, which is more than the total cost of engineering in most engineering colleges. Throughout the country, education is increasingly going beyond the means of middle class and it surprises me to observe that CBSE is not taking any concrete action in this regard. I have worked in the education industry for the past over 10 years, including over 6 years in FIITJEE and Radical, and as a responsible citizen. I have repeatedly informed CBSE regional offices in Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai and Trivandrum. However, they have failed to initiate any action in this regard. Under the RTI Act, 2005, I would like to seek information on why CBSE is turning a blind eye to commercialization of education and allowing our national mission of Education for all to fail."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 21.06.2019 stating as under:-
"....appellant may go through the rule 14, 10 of Chapter -14 of Affiliation Bye-Laws 2018 available on website www.cbseaff.nic.in."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2019. FAA's order dated 22.07.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with non-redressal of his grievance regarding commercialization of CBSE affiliated schools, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Seema Khakha,Assistant Secretary & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual context of RTI Application stated that this issue of commecialization of education by promoting private tuition services in the school premises by violating the CBSE affiliation bye laws is quite rampant in our country. Therefore, he filed the instant RTI Application, however no material information has been received from the CPIO till date. He also harped on the issue that the school(s) are recruiting B.Tech. qualified teachers ignoring the key fact that they do no possess B.Ed. degrees which is an essential qualification for a school teacher to impart education to the wards.
The CPIO submitted that timely response along with specific hyper link indicating the Affiliation Bye laws spelling out norms/ restrictions on the use of school premises for commercial purpose, has already been informed to the Appellant. She further added that the Appellant can raise this issue on the 'complaint portal' of CBSE for redressal of his grievance.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has not sought for any information per se as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for the inferences/ clarifications/deductions to be provided by the CPIO. The Appellant may note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions, 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 the penal provisions of the RTI Act. It will be relevant here to cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld 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 3 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' 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) Nonetheless, a factual reply has been given by the CPIO in keeping with the letter and spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Now, taking an empathetic view of the issue raised by the Appellant regarding commercialization of education by school(s) in violation of CBSE affiliation Bye laws which impacts the future of the students and thus, in the larger public interest , a copy of this order is marked to the Chairman, CBSE to look into the issue raised by the Appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4 Copy marked to take note for compliance -
Chairman, C.B.S.E.,Shiksha Kendra 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092.
5