Central Information Commission
Sani Keshari vs National Council For Teacher Education on 21 December, 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/2020/677024 +
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/677028 +
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/677030
Sani Keshari ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher
Education, RTI Cell, G-7, Sector-
10, Dwarka, Near Metro Station,
New Delhi-110075 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/11/2021
Date of Decision : 10/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The instant appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are based
on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s):
RTI application(s) filed on : 19/03/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal(s) filed on : 29/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
1
2nd Appeal(s)/Complaint dated : 07/07/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed online RTI application(s) dated 19.03.2020 seeking the following information:
File No : CIC/NCTED/A/2020/677024
1. According to the NCTE letter 77806, in terms of the provisions of Section 17(4) of NCTE act any teacher training qualification obtained through an institution not recognised by NCTE for undertaking such teacher training course is not a valid qualification for appointment as a teachers in government school. Therefore, If the teacher training course has been duly recognized by NCTE, then the degree holder can be appointed as a teacher in the Government Secondary school (IX - X) and Higher Secondary school (XI - XII) or not. If yes, please provide the relevant documents.
2. Under Section 14(3) (a) of the NCTE act 1993, BHU B.Ed. (Special), one year, is recognised by NCTE (letter enclosed), BHU B.Ed. (Special) degree holder can appoint as a teacher in Government Secondary school (IX - X) and Government Higher Secondary school (XI - XII) or not. If yes, please provide relevant undersigned documents.
File No : CIC/NCTED/A/2020/677028
1. According to the NCTE letter 77806, in terms of the provisions of Section 17(4) of NCTE act any teacher training qualification obtained through an institution not recognised by NCTE for undertaking such teacher training course is not a valid qualification for appointment as a teachers in government school. Therefore If the B.Ed. (special) course has been duly recognized by NCTE, then the degree holder can be appoint in the Government Secondary school (IX - X) and Higher Secondary school (XI - XII) or not. If yes, please provide the relevant documents.
File No : CIC/NCTED/A/2020/677030
1.If the B.Ed. (special) course has been duly recognized by NCTE, then the degree holder can be appoint in the Secondary school (IX - X) and Higher 2 Secondary school (XI - XII) or not. If yes, please provide the relevant documents.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed First Appeal(s) dated 29.04.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Priyank Jain, PIO present through intra-video conference.
The PIO tendered his unconditional regret and stated that the reply to the RTI Application(s) was provided on 20.07.2020 and prior to the hearing, he has provided an additional reply on 25.10.2021. He further relied on his written submissions wherein it was stated that after the retirement of the then PIO w.e.f 28.02.2020 there was a huge workload and soon after the pandemic struck and the nationwide lockdown was imposed which disrupted the office administration due to which timely replies could not be sent to the RTI Applicants.
The Appellant stated that the regulations referred to by the PIO in their replies do not bear any mention of the B.Ed (Special) course and therefore serves no purpose to him.
The PIO clarified that Special Education courses do not come under the purview of NCTE and the same has been stated by him in his additional reply of 25.10.2021. Upon a query from the Commission, the PIO further clarified that the Special Courses come under the purview of the Rehabilitation Council of India.
The Appellant argued that there is a certain anomaly in what the PIO is claiming as he is in possession of documents wherefrom it is evinced that NCTE had accorded recognition to B.Ed (Special) degree offered by Banaras Hindu University (BHU) as per an order of NCTE dated 30.09.1997 for an annual intake of 15 students in the academic year 1997-98, copy of which was enclosed with his RTI Application & Appeal(s) and a similar recognition order was issued to BHU in the year 2020 also and it appears that such recognition has been till date accorded to 3 only BHU. He also relied on the certificate issued by the Regional Director, NRC, NCTE to him on 23.12.2019 which certifies that he has completed the B.Ed (Special) course from BHU in the academic session 2014-2015 which is recognized by NCTE. In the wake of these documents, he remarked as to how is it correct for the PIO to claim that B.Ed (Special) courses do not come under the purview of the NCTE. He further urged that his career and that of several other similarly placed individuals who have completed this course in the year 2014 from BHU is at stake due to this anomaly as the Jharkhand State Government has terminated his services on the grounds that his B.Ed (Special) degree is not recognized by NCTE. He furthermore stated that he has been running from pillar to post since the year 2019 in the NCTE office to seek redressal of this grievance and to have clarity in the matter but to no avail.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes that the information sought for by the Appellant neither conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor the issues raised by him during the hearing are amenable to the ambit of the RTI Act. 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.........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) 4 The limited scope of action pertinent in the matter was with respect to the inaction of the Respondent office in not having provided a timely reply to any of the three RTI Applications. Nonetheless, considering the submissions of the PIO, the Commission cannot lose sight of the extraordinary circumstances rendered by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time and the subsequent lockdown that affected the workspaces.
Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter under the RTI Act.
However, the anomalies pointed out by the Appellant vis-à-vis the documents on record issued by NCTE according recognition to the B.Ed (Special) course and now the PIO claiming that the said degree course does not come under the purview of the NCTE is rather perturbing to note. Keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act and the probable impact this kind of anomaly may have on similarly placed degree holders as that of the Appellant, a copy of this order is marked to the Chairman, NCTE to look into the matter for expeditious redressal.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:
Chairman National Council for Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, Near Metro Station, New Delhi-110075
--(For necessary action) 5