Central Information Commission
Mahendra P Ramteke vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 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/KVSAN/A/2019/120179
Mahendra P Ramteke अपीलकता /Appellant
.....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Regional Office, IIT Campus
Pawai, Mumbai-400076 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/02/2021
Date of Decision : 22/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2018
CPIO replied on : 27/12/2018
First appeal filed on : 04/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 22/01/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/04/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
1The Appellant filed RTI application dated 03.12.2018 seeking information on following four points regarding private tuitions taken by the spouse of KVS employee at KV of Chanda, including inter-alia;
1. 'Are the teachers serving in Kendriya Vidyalaya O.F. Chanda are exempted for following the code of conduct and permitting appellant will them to undertake private tutoring
2. The principal and some of the teachers are residing in the same estate area, then also how the principal is unaware of this.
3. On enquiry, the teachers may deny the fact and try to prove not they but their spouses are providing private tutoring. Then is there any vigilance cell/competent authority to investigate the matter impartially.
4. To prevent students from teachers fear and undue pressure, what action is initiated on teachers found guilty?"
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the Appellant on 27.12.2018. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.01.2019. FAA's order dated 22.01.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO against point No. 1 and provided information against point No. 3. With regard to point Nos. 2 & 4, FAA, further stated that the information asked by the applicant is not covered under Section 2(f) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
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: Present through video conference. Respondent: Sanjeev Goswami, Administrative officer & PIO present through video conference.
The Appellant narrated the context of his RTI application and alleged that the teachers of KVS are providing private tuitions and the same is against the rules and regulations of KVS. He further stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO.2
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply was provided to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application. He further clarified that as per Article 59 of Education Code for KV, no teacher shall engage themselves in private tuition and that an undertaking to this effect is taken from all the teachers every year for monitoring purposes.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant is in the form of seeking clarifications/interpretations which is not in conformity with the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided an appropriate and point-wise reply to the RTI Application and has also tendered adequate clarifications to the Appellant during the hearing.
In view of the foregoing, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3