Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

K. Arunachalam vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 25 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/KVSAN/A/2023/131923

K. Arunachalam                                                    ... अपीलकता /Appellant




                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO: Kendriya Vidyalaya
 Sangathan, Chennai                                           ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 24.03.2023                  FA    : 15.05.2023              SA     : 22.07.2023

 CPIO : 12.04.2023                 FAO : 19.06.2023                Hearing : 18.09.2024


Date of Decision: 24.09.2024
                                           CORAM:
                                     Hon'ble Commissioner
                                   _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                          ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

(i) How many students are admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya School in 11th standard in Academic Year 2022-23?

(ii) Whether reservation is followed while admitting the students for 11th standard?

(iii) What is the strength of the 11th class at Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Kanathampoondi Campus, Kanathampoondi Village, Thiruvannamalai District?

(iv) How many Schedule Caste students studying in 11th standard in the academic year 2022-23 in Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Kanathampoondi Campus, Kanathampoondi Village, Thiruvannamalai District?

(v) After completing 10th standard whether automatically the admission being given to the students who is studying 10th standard in the same school?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"Point (i) to (v) - Questions and clarifications are not replied under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA's order dated 19.06.2023 stated as follows:

"Point (i) & (ii) - Query is not clear and information sought may be specific.

Point (iii) - 39 Point (iv) - 11 Point (v) - Admission are done as per KVS admission guidelines." Etc..

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.07.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. M Vellaichamy, Assistant Commissioner, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that initially the CPIO denied the information sought to the appellant on 12.04.2023, as the information sought was not as per section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the FAA vide order dated 19.06.2023, had provided a point-wise reply to the appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:

"....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......."

8. However, the FAA has provided all the available information to the appellant vide order dated 19.06.2023. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.

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: 24.09.2024

Authenticated true copy

Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, CPIO, Regional Office Chhenai, I. I. T. Campus, Chennai, Tamilnadu -600036

2. K. Arunachalam Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)