Public authorities are not obligated to provide information that is not available under their custody or would disproportionately divert resources.

1.

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2022 seeking information on the

following points:

1 (a)

When was the post of Yoga teachers in KVS, which was started purely on

experimental and temporary basis from session 1981-82, made a regular post?

1 (b)

In which BOG the decision to make post of Yoga Teachers’ a

regular/permanent post was taken? Kindly provide the copy of the concerned

portion of the Minutes of the said BOG.

Page 2 of 3

1(c)

Provide the copy of the letter circulated after the BOG meeting (1b) directing

to regularize the post of Yoga Teachers’.

2.

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1 a to c Queries, clarifications, suggestions are not covered under the section 2 (f)

of RTI Act-2005. However, in this regard it is to inform that yoga teacher is a dying

cadre in KVS and desired information is older more than 30 years and is not

readily available meeting with PIO, and will disproportionately divert the

resources of the Public Authority, hence cannot be provided under Section 7 (9) of

R.T.I. Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First

Appeal dated 18.08.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and

misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.09.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4.

Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with

the instant Second Appeal dated 11.11.2022.

5.

The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Aditya Sharma, Administrative

Officer, attended the hearing in person.

6.

The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was not

satisfactory.

7.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they attempted

fresh efforts to search records concerning introduction of Yoga Education in KVS. In

furtherance of their fresh efforts, they could lay hands on order dated 23.12.1986 effecting

continuance of the scheme of Yoga Education in KVS.

8.

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing

both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply was given by the

CPIO on 20.07.2022. Further, the respondent authority may not be compelled to provide

records not available under their custody. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of

Page 3 of 3

India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed

as under:

“20. …While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular

information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the

Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties

concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession

of a public authority….”

In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the

matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामलंगम

आनंदी रामलंगम

आनंदी रामलंगम

आनंदी रामलंगम)

Information Commissioner (सूचना

सूचना

सूचना

सूचना आयु

आयु

आयु

आयु)

दनांक/Date: 29.12.2023

Authenticated true copy

Suman Bala

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514

Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,

R.P.S. & Nodal CPIO, H.Q.,

18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,

New Delhi-110016

2. Sanjeev Trivedi