Central Information Commission
Nitin vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 19 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/610709
NITIN .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
RTI CELL, INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX,
SECTOR - 23, PHASE-I, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI - 110077 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026
Date of Decision : 10.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 24.12.2024
First appeal filed on : 26.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2024 seeking the following information:
"A person named Sakshi Sharma or Sakshi alias Saku Bhai (parents- Muneshwar Parsad & Mukesh) has been working in Kalpana Chawla Vidyapeeth, Khanda Road, Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana -131402 (CBSE Affiliation ID- 530768 & UDISE ID 06080401808); with AADHAR No. *********3187 since 2021 (also done online duties in academic session 2020-21). That person's Date of birth is *******, having Qualification Page 1 of 9 M.Sc. Chemistry, B.Ed. the person has made a fraud cases of dowry (from 2019) on her husband Nitin (The person named Sakshi declare herself as wife only in court just to earn money through fraud cases, not anywhere else). The person named Sakshi uses the word 'wife' only in the courts just to earn money. And her husband requires his wife to be girl, not a kinnar. This person named Sakshi has done CBSE invigilator duty in CBSE exams 2022-23 & 2023-24. Till now, No information is provided by the CBSE in this regard. It is important to note that the school authorities are not giving details, for which the complaints to the Anti Corruption Bureau & CM window has been submitted.
Also, it is to mention that no any indecent language has been used by me. Only a husband can tell what his wife is.
Also I am not asking for third party information As In Rahmat Bano v/s Chief Commissioner of Income Tax case 2014, the Hon'ble CIC allowed the same information and ordered to disclose the salary details of wife and denied to consider this a third party information. (Marriage certificate attached).
In recent ruling on 27 September 2023, the CIC directed the CPIO of Income tax department to divulge generic information like taxable income, gross income, time period etc. to his husband (Yash Malhotra v/s income tax department 2023). This is not a personal information under RTI ACT.
Also, it is again requested to please provide the OASIS details in respect of the above mentioned person i.e. Name, Father's name, Mother's name, date of birth, PAN No., Account Number, salary details, date of appointment, qualification, Aadhar no. etc. Mentioned on the OASIS Portal. Also it is important to note that information sought is related to data submitted by the school authorities on CBSE portal like OASIS, Integrated Payment System etc. So the judgement in Shri Ramesh Chand Jain v/s Delhi transport Corporation, GNCTD is not applicable to this RTI.
The above generic information regarding salary along with complete details submitted on CBSE portals etc. of Sakshi be sent via registered post/speed post along with e-mail as per RTI ACT and registered post no./speed post no. shall be intimated accordingly."
Page 2 of 92. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.12.2024 stating as under:
"Reply :- In response to the multiple RTI requests/appeals filed by the applicant in the past, this Office has been repeatedly issuing replies by providing all available information to the applicant under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005.
The applicant may please note once again that answering repeated RTI applications/First Appeals on similar issues results in a disproportionate diversion of resources of the public authority. The applicant is therefore advised not to repeat similar or slightly altered information/requests under the RTI Act, 2005, for which he had already been issued a response by the public authority.
The applicant is also advised to avoid filing repeated RTI applications and subsequent First Appeals on similar matters. Every repetition of the RTI application which was earlier responded to will be an obstruction to the flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act. For this the applicant has been informed to refer to the judgment of Honble Central Information Commission in File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA dt. 25.06.2014 (Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Government of Delhi).
It is once again reiterated that in the light of CBSE gudelines the affiliated schools have to upload details of teaching staff with qualifications on its website.
The concerned school, Kalpana Chawla Vidyapeeth, Khanda Road, Kharkhoda, Distt Sonepat, Haryana-131402 (CBSE Affiliation No. 530768) has duly declared and uploaded its Staff List on its official website under CBSE corner, no such individual as highlighted by the appellant in his application is a part of the School Staff List. The appellant may visit the official website of the school and verify the same:
Website: http://kalpanachawlavidyapeethkkd.com/ Direct Link:
http://kalpanachawlavidyapeethkkd.com/pages/StaffList.aspx Besides, no such staff member is found available in the records of the School available with the Board.
Therefore, for further information, the applicant may approach the School Management Committee of the concerned school or the Page 3 of 9 respective District/State Education Departments/Education Office of the appropriate Government, which collects such information from all schools located in the district in the form of UDISE data from time to time."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kshettry, US/CPIO present in person.
5. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
6. Written statement filed by the CPIO is taken on record. CPIO invited attention of the Bench towards the contents of his written statement, wherein he inter alia pleaded as under -
1. As per available records, the Appellant has filed 11 (Eleven) applications as per list Annexed at ANNEXURE-1, and several First Appeals under the RTI Act in the year 2024 and 2025, all related to a similar matter.
2. In response to the multiple RTI applications submitted by the Appellant, this Office has consistently issued replies and provided the information available on record in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The First Appeal referred by the appellant in the opening paragraph of the instant RTI request which is CBSED/A/E/24/00449 dt. 25.08.2024 was against the earlier RTI request CBSED/R/E/24/03101 dt. 25.07.2024. The reply to this very RTI request (CBSED/R/E/24/03101) was issued to the appellant on 25.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-2) and reply to the subsequent First Appeal (CBSED/A/E/24/00449) was issued to the appellant on 27.11.2024 (ANNEXURE-3) and booked through Speed Post No. ED652842294IN dt. 02.12.2024.
4. Incidentally, this very RTI request and first appeal has already been heard and decided by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission containing an identical and substantially similar matter raised by the applicant, vide hearing and decision in File No. CIC/C8SED/A/2024/649731 dated 28.07.2025, annexed as ANNEXURE-4
5. The Appellant has repeatedly sought personal and employment-related information such as Name, Father's Name, Mother's Name, Date of Birth, PAN, Account No Salary Details, Date of Appointment, Qualifications, Page 4 of 9 Aadhaar Number, etc., in respect of an individual named as Sakshi Sharma or Sakshi alias Saku Bhai, stated to have been working in Kalpana Chawla Vidyapeeth, Khanda Road, Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana-131402 (CBSE Affiliation No. 530768).
6. Nevertheless, with regard to the present RTI application which was filed on 30.11.2024, nearly 08 months prior to the above-cited decision of the Hon'ble Commission dated 28.07.2025, is submitted that, as part of suo motu disclosure in accordance with Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, and in the light of Chapter 2 Clause 2.4 (2.4.9) of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, 2018, read with CBSE Circular No. 03/2021 dated 06.03.2021 (https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Circulars/Circular3. in/saras/Circulars/Circular3.pdf), the affiliated schools are required to upload the details of teachers working in the school (Including Name, Designation and Qualifications) on their official website.
7. However, the remaining information sought by the Appellant in respect of an individual pertains to service matter related personal information of a third party individual, which is held by the Board in fiduciary capacity for the limited purpose of processing and maintaining records relating to affiliation of the School with CBSE, so as to enable the Board to achieve its core objective and statutory mandate of conducting Class X and XII Examinations. Such information, if available in the records of the Board, is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 B. As part of ensuring complete transparency and fairness, and with a view to facilitating access to information already available in the public domain, the Appellant was duly provided the official website link of the concerned School upon receipt of each RTI request and First Appeal, enabling him to independently examine the staff information disclosed by the School as part of public disclosure: Website: http://kalpanachawlavidyapeethkkd.com/ Direct Link: http://kalpanachawlavidyapeethkkd.com/pages/StaffList.aspx...
9. Besides, upon perusal of the Staff List declared by the concerned School on its website, the Appellant was informed in the very first instance that the Staff List declared by the School on its website or available with the Board does not contain the name of any such individual, or the aliases highlighted by the Appellant in his application. The Staff List declared by the School and furnished before the Hon'ble Commission on 22.07.2025 is annexed at ANNEXURE-A
10. Moreover, even as on date, no such staff member with any of the aliases specified by the Appellant has been found available in the records presently declared by the School on its website/link mentioned above. The Staff List presently uploaded by the concerned School as on date is annexed at ANNEXURE-B
11. Notwithstanding the above, the information sought does not appear to have any relationship to any larger public interest or public activity, particularly in the context of the issues raised by the Appellant in his RTI request. From the contents of the RTI application, it is apparent that the Page 5 of 9 information sought is intended to address a matter of personal interest of the Appellant.
12. For further assistance, the Appellant was also informed that he may approach the concerned School Management Committee/Society of the School, or contact the office of the concerned District Education Officer/ State Education Department Directorate of Education, having jurisdiction over the area where the School is located.
13. In view of the repeated RTI applications and First Appeals filed by the Appellant on the same matter, he was also advised not to repeatedly file identical or slightly modified RTI requests under the RTI Act, 2005, when responses had already been issued by the Public Authority Addressing repeated RTI applications and First Appeals on identical issues results in a disproportionate diversion of resources, energy and man-hours of the Public Authority. The Appellant was therefore requested to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/0013265A dated 25.06.2014 (Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC, Government of Delhi)
14. It is also respectfully submitted that once an RTI application has been duly answered, the Appellant should refrain from firing another RTI application seeking the same information from the Public Authority, since once information is provided and received by 9. Besides, upon perusal of the Staff List declared by the concerned School on its website, the Appellant was informed in the very first instance that the Staff List declared by the School on its website or available with the Board does not contain the name of any such individual, or the aliases highlighted by the Appellant in his application. The Staff List declared by the School and furnished before the Hon'ble Commission on 22.07.2025 is annexed at ANNEXURE-A
10. Moreover, even as on date, no such staff member with any of the aliases specified by the Appellant has been found available in the records presently declared by the School on its website/link mentioned above. The Staff List presently uploaded by the concerned School as on date is annexed at ANNEXURE-B
11. Notwithstanding the above, the information sought does not appear to have any relationship to any larger public interest or public activity, particularly in the context of the issues raised by the Appellant in his RTI request. From the contents of the RTI application, it is apparent that the information sought is intended to address a matter of personal interest of the Appellant.
12. For further assistance, the Appellant was also informed that he may approach the concerned School Management Committee/Society of the School, or contact the office of the concerned District Education Officer/ State Education Department Directorate of Education, having jurisdiction over the area where the School is located.
13. In view of the repeated RTI applications and First Appeals filed by the Appellant on the same matter, he was also advised not to repeatedly file Page 6 of 9 identical or slightly modified RTI requests under the RTI Act, 2005, when responses had already been issued by the Public Authority Addressing repeated RTI applications and First Appeals on identical issues results in a disproportionate diversion of resources, energy and man-hours of the Public Authority. The Appellant was therefore requested to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/0013265A dated 25.06.2014 (Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC, Government of Delhi)
14. It is also respectfully submitted that once an RTI application has been duly answered, the Appellant should refrain from firing another RTI application seeking the same information from the Public Authority, since once information is provided and received by the applicant, such information is deemed to have ceased to be held by the Public Authority for the purpose of repeated disclosure under RTI.
PRAYER In view of the foregoing facts and submissions, it is most respectfully submitted that:
1. The information available on record at the time of disposal of the RTI application was duly furnished by the CPIO.
2. There has been no deliberate denial, suppression, or malafide withholding of information. The exemptions claimed, wherever applicable, fall squarely within the framework of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The subject matter of the information sought by the Appellant has already been heard and decided by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in File No. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/649731 dated 28.07.2025.
4. The practice adopted by the Appellant of filing successive RTI applications and appeals on the same issue amounts to a misuse of the statutory mechanism. Such conduct results in unnecessary diversion of the Public Authority's time and resources, thereby directly affecting the ability of CBSE to discharge its core mandate, including the conduct of Class X and XII examinations, and imposing an avoidable administrative burden.
5. The repetitive filing of complaints, coupled with requests for disclosure of information that is already available in the public domain, runs contrary to the spirit and objectives of the RTI Act, which aims to promote transparency and accountability and not to facilitate harassment or obstruct the functioning of public institutions.
6. In addition to the above, it may also be appropriate to advise the appellant to refrain from using any language that may be construed as unethical, uncivilized, or insensitive towards any gender or section of society while submitting applications or communications to the Public Authority. Further, the appellant may be requested to avoid raising one-sided allegations against any individual with a view to substantiating his request for information. Such assertions become particularly unwarranted when the matter referred to pertains to the alleged personal and private affair of the appellant's estranged wife, in which the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is Page 7 of 9 neither a concerned party nor a competent authority to adjudicate or comment upon.
7. At the same time, it is also respectfully submitted that under section 6(2) of the RTI, Act, 2005, an applicant seeking information is not required to provide any reasons for requesting such information or to furnish any personal details other than those necessary for contacting him. Accordingly, the processing of the RTI request is confined strictly to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the information available on record with the Public Authority..."
Decision:
7. CPIO contended that a detailed reply along with relevant available information as is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided to the Appellant initially and again vide averred written statement. CPIO apprised the Bench that Appellant filed multiple RTI application seeking identical information of his estrange spouse to waste the time and resources of the Respondent Public Authority, however, all his RTI applications were duly replied on every occasion. Further, a similar Second Appeal of the Appellant was heard and disposed by the Central Information Commission bearing File No. CIC/CBSED/A/2024/649731 on 28.07.2025 with no further directions in the matter.
8. Heard the parties appeared.
9. After perusal of the records in the matter under reference, the Commission observes that as far as RTI Application in question is concerned, it was suitably replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.12.2024 and now vide written statement of CPIO. Further, the Appellant failed to substantiate the ground of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis reply of the CPIO's to the RTI application in question by neither pleading the case before the Bench during hearing nor filing any written statement to controvert the version of the CPIO.
Nonetheless, the written statement filed by the CPIO is comprehensive and self-explanatory which adequately addresses the queries raised by the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act, 2005 and a copy of which has been already served to the Appellant through email.
10. In the light of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Page 8 of 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Nitin Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)