Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sapana Chaturvedi vs Border Security Force on 14 July, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/624745.

Ms. SAPANA CHATURVEDI                                              ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                          ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Border Security Force.


Date of Hearing                            :   10.07.2025
Date of Decision                           :   10.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner             :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :            09.04.2024
PIO replied on                    :            14.05.2024
First Appeal filed on             :            09.05.2024
First Appellate Order on          :            20.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :            12.06.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.04.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1. I was appointed on TGT[Hindi/Sanskrit) at BSF Senior Senior Secondary School Tekanpur by OFFICE OF THE CENTAL COMMITTEE: BSF EDUCATION FUND SOCIETY BLOCK 10, CGO, COMPLE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. The satisfactory service of 2 year and 4 months successfully given by me. After that I was relieved on Aug 2019. 50 please provide me attested copy of all the documents regarding relieving of my service including meeting agenda.
2. During the period of 2014 to 2022 How many candidates are appointed on TGT and PGT post in all BSF Sen Sec Schools by OFFICE OF THE CENTAL COMMITTEE: 85F EDUCATION FUND SOCIETY BLOCK 10, CGO, COMPLE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. And how many are regularize please provide Name and related orders."

Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2024.

The PIO has furnished reply dated 14.05.2025 as under:

"..2. उपरोक्त के सम्बन्द्ध में इस कायागलय से संबंनधत नबन्द्िओं ु पर आपको अवगत करवाया जाता है दक सूचना का अनधकार अनधननयम 2005 की धारा 24 के अंतगगत सीमा सुरक्षा बल जोदक एक सुरक्षा संगठन है, को नितीय अनुसूची में शानमल कर भ्रष्टाचार और मानवानधकार के उल्लंघन नवषयों को Page 1 छोड़कर इस अनधननयम से मुक्त रखा गया है, को ध्यान में रखते हुए आपके िारा मांगी गयी जानकारी िेना संभव नहीं है क्योंदक यह सूचना के अनधकार अनधननयम 2005 के धारा 24 के पररनध में नहीं आती है।.."

The FAA, Inspector General (Administration) vide order dated 20.5.2024 replied as under:-

"2 उपरोक्त अपील के संिभग में अवगत कराया जाता है दक आपके नपछले ऑन-लाईन आर०टी०आई० आवेिन पंजीकरण संख्या BSECF/R/E/24/00360 dated 09.04.2024 िारा चाही गई जानकारी का ननपटारा इस कायागलय के पत्र संख्या प्रशा- 4/आरटीआई /सीसुबल/2024/180 दिनांक 14 मई, 2024 के तहत दकया जा चुका है।
3. साथ ही आपको सूनचत दकया जाता है दक सीमा सुरक्षा बल, भारत सरकार िारा स्थानपत एक सुरक्षा संगठन है तथा सूचना का अनधकार अनधननयम 2005 की नितीय अनुसूची में नवननर्िगष्ट है। सूचना का अनधकार अनधननयम-2005 की धारा 24 के अन्द्तगगत भ्रष्टाचार और मानव अनधकारों के उल्लंघन से संबंनधत सूचना के अलावा सीमा सुरक्षा बल दकसी प्रकार की सूचना प्रिान करने के नलए बाध्य नहीं है।
4. चूूँदक उक्त मामला न तो भ्रष्टाचार और न ही मानवानधकार उल्लंघन से संबंनधत है, अतः आपके िारा मांगी गई सूचना/िस्वावेज प्रिान नहीं दकए जा सकते एवं आपके िारा दकया गया अनुरोध अस्वीकृ त है।"

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 03.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

"..2. It is to further inform that suitable reply of RTI application dated 09.04.2024 submitted by Ms. Sapana Chaturvedi was given to her vide FHQ BSF L/No. Adm-IV/RTI/BSF/2024/180 dated 14.05.2024, and reply of 1 Appeal was also given to her vide FHQ BSF L/No. Adm-IV/RTI/BSF/2024/188 dated 20.05.2024 (Copy of both the letters is enclosed for ready reference).
3. It is also to mentioned here that as per record, Ms. Sapana Chaturvedi was appointed as TGT (Hindi/Sanskrit) in BSF Sr. Sec. School, Tekanpur temporarily on contractual basis vide FHQ BSF order No. 385-89 dated 11.04.2017 for one year on a consolidated salary of Rs. 26,250/-, She joined at BSF Sr. Sec. School, Tekanpur on 01.07.2017. As per Para 10.6(1) of Chapter- 10 of BSF Education Code-2018, "Every year, fresh contractual teachers to be appointed and any candidate can serve for maximum two academic sessions on contract basis. After that, his/her services shall not be entertained by the concerned school/institution."

4. Accordingly, in terms of provisions of BSF Education Code- 2018, contract of Ms. Sapana Chaturvedi was extended for one Page 2 more academic session. Further, due to closure of BSF Sr. Sec. School, Tekanpur (from 2019-20 in phased manners) as well as completion of contractual period for two academic sessions, she was relieved from service on 16.08.2019. In this regard, she had also filed WP No. 24087/2019 titled 'Sapana Chaturvedi Vs UOI & Ors' before the Hon'ble MP High Court Bench at Gwalior, which is still sub-judice.

5. It may also not be out of the place to mention here that as far as BSF Department is concerned, in terms of provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF being a security organization listed in the Second Schedule of the said Act, has also been given exemption from the provisions of this Act except allegation of corruption and matter of human right violations. Since, the information sought by the Applicant do not fall in any of the above exceptions, the information sought by the above Applicant also does not fall within the ambit if Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.."

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Mahendra Kumar, DIG, BSF- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to her till date. She averred that she was appointed on TGT(Hindi/Sanskrit) at BSF Senior Secondary School Tekanpur. She stated that after the satisfactory service of 2 year and 4 months successfully given by me. After that she was relieved from services in August 2019. She stated that she has sought all the documents regarding relieving of her service including meeting agenda which has been wrongly denied by the PIO.
The Respondent stated that the in terms of provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF being a security organization listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, has been given exemption from the provisions of RTI Act except allegation of corruption and matter of human right violations. He averred that the information sought by the Appellant does not fall under either of the two aforementioned categories. He further apprised the Commission that the BSF Education Fund Society has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860 on 16.06.1978. He stated that the BSF Education Fund Society is strictly private in nature and is being run with voluntary contribution of BSF serving personnel and the revenue generated from the educational institutions. He stated that no financial assistance is being given to BSF Education Fund Society either by the Central or the State Government. Furthermore, due to closure of BSF Sr. Sec. School, Tekanpur (from 2019-20 in phased manners) as well as completion of contractual period for two academic sessions, the Appellant was relieved from service on 16.08.2019. In this regard, the Appellant had also filed WP No. 24087/2019 titled 'Sapana Chaturvedi Vs UOI & Ors' before the Hon'ble MP High Court Bench at Gwalior.
Page 3 Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, 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. 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.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)