Central Information Commission
M A Amir Osmani vs National Council For Teacher Education on 22 September, 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/NCTED/A/2019/643485
M A Amir Osmani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for
Teacher Education, RTI Cell, G-7,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110075. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/09/2021
Date of Decision : 21/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/01/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 29/03/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 30/04/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/06/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 24.01.2019 seeking the following information:
"I have appeared Centralized Admission Test for M.Ed. Regular Course 2013 14 conducted by Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of Maharashtra State,Pune and admitted in Shri JanjagrutiShikshanPrasarak Mandal Shekapur, ShehnagarChandrapursKhemaji Naik College of Education PG Dept. (M.Ed) Gadchandur, Rajura Road Gadchandur, Taluka Korpana, District Chandrapur, Pin 442908, Ph. No 07173202132 Un Aided College Code 30611007 Affiliated to Gondwana University Gadchiroli during the Academic Year 2013-2014 and successfully completed in May 2014.
This college is no more in the list of updated Recognized Institutions List in the official website of NCTE and also unable to download the withdrawal order from the NCTE WRC Website which creates confusion among the employers.
Query:-
Furnish the copies of Order of Recognition to the College and Order of Withdrawal of the Recognition to the College to me within ONE WEEK to produce before the concern authority whenever they ask."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2019. FAA's order dated 30.04.2019 directed Satish Kumar Pahal, PIO, (WRC), NCTE to furnish theappropriate reply to the applicant within 7 days.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.(Remained unavailable for audio conference) Respondent: Rajesh Borkar, PS & PIO (WRC) present through audio conference.
The PIO submitted that the available information was provided to the Appellant vide their online reply dated 02.12.2019.2
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard, the Commission is constrained to decide the case based on the strength of the material on record.
The Commission takes grave exception to the inordinate delay caused by the CPIO in replying to the instant RTI Application as the information has been provided after a delay of almost a year and even the FAA's order remained unheeded for about 8 months. The said omission of the CPIO amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Now, therefore, the CPIO is directed to send his written explanation stating as to why no reply was provided to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act as well as the reasons for the non- compliance of the FAA's order. The said written explanation of the CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In doing so, if any other persons are responsible for the omission, the CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to such other persons under due intimation to the Commission and direct their submissions to be sent as per the above directions.
Further, although the information provided by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, however, in the absence of the Appellant, the Commission is not in a position to ascertain if he has received the reply of 02.12.2019.
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to resend a copy of the said reply to the Appellant through speed/registered post as well as via email within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall also be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4