Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Nita Kumari vs National Institute Of Open Schooling on 23 February, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/NIOPS/A/2019/118583

Nita Kumari                                               अपीलकता /Appellant
                                                       .....अपीलकता 



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम

CPIO
National Institute of Open Schooling,
RTI Cell, Regional Centre Patna,
Lalit Bhawan (Ground Floor), Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001            .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                   :   23/02/2021
Date of Decision                  :   23/02/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   17/01/2019
CPIO replied on                   :   22/02/2019
First appeal filed on             :   01/03/2019
First Appellate Authority order   :   NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   16/04/2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.01.2019 seeking following information -

"म िनता कु मारी, D.EL. Ed. Course 17-19 का Refrence No-D102800503, Enrollment No.- 10281002402002 एवं Centre Code No-31028022 T.P.S. College, Patna है। का Corse Code-501 | ब क पटना के नाम से बना कर जमा कर ा कया Elementry Education in India & Socio Cultural Perspective Subject का Revaluation के िलए। आवेदन कया था उसका उ र पुि तका क छाया ित उपल ध कराया जाय।"

The CPIO, NIOS provided reply to the Appellant on 22.02.2019.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.03.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

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

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Commander Parampreet Singh, Regional Director & CPIO present through video conference.

The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was duly informed that she can procure this desired information upon payment of Rs. 700 per answer script within 45 days from the date of declaration of the results.

The Commission remarked upon a perusal of the facts on record that the reply of the CPIO is not appropriate as he was required to provide the information as per the provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules, 2012.

The CPIO appeared to be not able to comprehend the observations of the Commission but stated that as on date he will have to check if the answer scripts are available or have been weeded out.

Decision:

The Commission observes that the CPIO appears to have sought for the fees for supplying the copy of answer scripts based on extant NIOS guidelines, however, under RTI Act, he cannot take umbrage of any other rules and regulations for stipulating the fees for supply of copy of documents or impose timelines for seeking the information.

The attention of the CPIO is drawn towards a judgment dated 11.04.2019 of the Apex Court in the matter of ICSI Vs Paras Jain, Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014 wherein it was held with reference to a guideline of ICSI prescribing the fees for seeking certified copies of answer scripts--

"12. Be that as it may, Guideline no.3 of the appellant does not take away from Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which also entitles the candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines." (Emphasis Supplied) Adverting to the aforesaid ratio as well as considering the fact that the CPIO failed to provide the averred information within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act, the CPIO is hereby directed to now provide a copy of the answer script as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant, free of cost under due intimation to the Commission. In the event that the answer script has been weeded out or is not available in the records, an appropriate affidavit to this effect shall be filed by the CPIO stating the reasons for the unavailability of the answer script and be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.

The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                सरोज पुनहािन)
                                                 Saroj Punhani (सरोज    हािन
                                                               सूचना आयु )
                                     Information Commissioner (सू



Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)

(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
 दनांक /

Nita Kumari




                                      4