Central Information Commission
Jatinder Singh vs National Institute Of Open Schooling on 30 March, 2022
CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/611884
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/611884
In the matter of:
Jatinder Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
National Institute of Open
Schooling, Regional Center
Chandigarh, YMCA Complex,
Sector-11 C, Chandigarh - 160 011
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 18.02.2021
CPIO replied on : 18.03.2021
First Appeal filed on : 18.03.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 30.03.2021
Second Appeal received on : 31.03.2021
Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Jatinder Singh, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Chandigarh
Respondent: Shri Gurudev Singh Deputy Director, participated in the hearing
through video conferencing from NIC Chandigarh
Page 1 of 5
CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/611884
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed online RTI Application dated 18.02.2021 seeking information on the following five points:
The CPIO vide online reply dated 18.03.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:
"1) Not available at Regional Centre.
2) Not available, attendance of Formative assessment for academic year 2019-20 session March, 2020 Public Examination (Stream 1 Block 1) at Regional Centre.
3) Not available at Regional Centre.Page 2 of 5
CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/611884
4) As per information received from concerned AI, the candidates who attended the 5 five compulsory PCP sessions (for formative) were marked within stipulated me.
5) Not available at Regional Centre."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.03.2021, informed as under:
"The undersigned being the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal dated 18/03/2021 preferred by Sh. Jatinder Singh against information provided by the CPIO. The Appellate Authority perused the relevant records and came to the conclusion that the CPIO had provided the information on the said RTI application dated 18/03/2021 mentioned above under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The information provided by the CPIO is just and fair.
Accordingly, the information provided by the CPIO is upheld and the appeal dated 18/03/2021 of Sh. Jatinder Singh is disposed off."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. Upon being queried by the Commission to elaborate the point of discontentment, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the reply in respect to point no. 1, 3 and 5 of the RTI Application. He further clarified the bench that he wants information pertaining to his son only.
The Respondent submitted that they have already given the information qua point nos. 1 and 5 to the Appellant in a different RTI Application, after obtaining it from their headquarters.Page 3 of 5
CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/611884 The Commission interjected and remarked the Respondent that saying they have already provided information qua point nos. 1 and 5 of this RTI Application to the Appellant in a different RTI would not suffice as it has not been given in this very particular case.
The Respondent further submitted that with respect to point no. 3 of the RTI Application; they are ready to provide information to the Appellant pertaining to his son only.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that reply provided by the Respondent qua point no. 1, 3 and 5 of the instant RTI Application is inadequate and evasive in nature and Respondent is admonished for the same. Hence, the Commission directs the present CPIO to provide revised reply on point no. 1, 3 and 5 of the RTI Application to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is further directed that he shall ensure that any personal information/identifying particulars of a third party should be adequately redacted/blackened out.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 30.03.2022 Page 4 of 5 CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/611884 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Institute of Open Schooling, NIOS Head office, A-24/25, Institutional Area, Sector - 62, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201 309
2. The Central Public Information Officer National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Center Chandigarh, YMCA Complex, Sector-11 C, Chandigarh - 160 011
3. Mr. Jatinder Singh Page 5 of 5