Central Information Commission
Meera vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 3 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2019/655122/03633
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2019/655122
In the matter of:
Meera
...Appellant
VS
CPIO/CTET
Central Board of Secondary Education
Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110 092
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2019 CPIO replied on : 26/08/2019 First appeal filed on : 16/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 27/09/2019 Second Appeal dated : 30/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 02/06/2020 Date of Decision : 02/06/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Shri B K Sahoo, representative of the appellant, heard over phone Respondent: Shri B S Prabhaker, CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The appellant wants the certified copies of the results of CTET from the session 2014 to 2017 published by CBSE.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) & 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the reply of FAA is not in consonance with the query made in the RTI Application.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him till date.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous as more than 35 lac students appear for CTET exams every year and hence the information cannot be shared with the appellant in the form of hard copies. However, the desired information is available on their website and the general public can access the same.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act was highly improper as the CPIO has failed to explain the applicability of the exemption claimed by him, more so when the CPIO during the hearing is admitting that the information is available on their website. It is also noted that the First Appellate Authority's order is irrelevant to the present case as some other issues were adjudicated therein which is not the same as the information sought by way of the present RTI application. However, in view of the submissions of the CPIO that the desired information is available on their website, he is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant providing her the hyper-links where the desired information is available.
The Commission also expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO who has given the online reply dated 26.08.2019 for handling the RTI application in such a negligent manner.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant giving her the hyper-link where the information is available within a period of 15 days after the lockdown is lifted under intimation to the Commission.
The concerned CPIO who had handled the RTI application and had given the reply dated 28.06.2019 is also issued a warning for handling the RTI application 2 File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2019/655122 in a casual way. Had he been more careful, a proper reply could have been given to the appellant at the relevant time. He should ensure that such mistakes are not repeated in future failing which the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3