Central Information Commission
Bade Bhushan vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 6 July, 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/CBSED/A/2019/659688
BADE BHUSHAN ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Board of Secondary
Education, RTI Cell, (CTET
Unit), PS I- 2, Institutional
Area, I.P. Extension,
Patparganj, Delhi - 110092 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/07/2021
Date of Decision : 05/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/08/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 12/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12/12/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 20.08.2019 seeking information regarding to following query of CTET December 2019 eligibility criteria of paper 2 that "if candidate's qualification is Graduation with 50% marks and passed 2 YEAR B.ED course then which option he should be choose out of 7 eligibility criteria which are mention in CTET December 2019 bulletin."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non- receipt of desired clarification from the CPIO with respect to eligibility criteria which he should choose out of 7 averred options for B.Ed. Course.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Despite numerous calls made at the given contact number of Appellant, calls were not responded to perpertually.) Respondent: Fida Hussain, Assistant Secretary & CPIO, present through audio- conference.
The CPIO submitted that timely response along with eligibility criteria has already been intimated to the Appellant initially and further now through a latest written submission dated 30.06.2021.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application has not sought for any information per se rather he has sought clarification and opinion from the CPIO which does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act; yet the CPIO in his wisdom has provided appropriate reply by giving reference to eligibility criteria which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of RTI Act.2
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part 5 of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of aforesaid observation , the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter and upholds CPIO's submissions.
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