Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3642
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, Information Commissioner
Sukhrani – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/KVSAN/A/2024/612471
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: Deepak Kumar Dabral
The CPIO is not mandated to create or interpret information under the RTI Act; response was appropriate and did not require further action.
Headnote:(A) RTI Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), Article 1(xii), Article 53 - Second Appeal - The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking rules on resignation and leave encashment, to which the CPIO responded citing the limitations under the RTI Act and informing rules applicable to KVS. The FAA upheld CPIO’s decision, leading to the present second appeal. (Paras 1, 3, 7)
(B) Duty of the CPIO - It is reiterated that the CPIO is not required to create or interpret information, thus limits the scope of queries beyond the inherent rules and clarifications.
Facts of the case:
The Appellant queries related to rules on resignation and leave encashment under RTI which the CPIO deemed outside the legal framework of the RTI Act, followed by a First Appeal and subsequently this Second Appeal dismissing the original inquiry.
Findings of Court:
CPIO provided appropriate responses as per the RTI Act provisions, and the Appellant did not present tenable grounds for challenge.
Issues: The main issue is whether the CPIO's responses were inadequate under the RTI Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission upheld the CPIO’s interpretation of the RTI Act, disallowing the Appellant's claim for further information on the basis of non-coverage under Section 2(f).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant filed rti queries. (Para 1) |
| 2. cpio's response rationale. (Para 2) |
| 3. appeal and hearing process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. commission's acknowledgment of appropriateness of cpio's response. (Para 7) |
| 5. final decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 8) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. “Please provide copy of rule for encashment of Earned Leave on Resignation from the post before retirement.
2. please provide copy of our rules of resignation in KVS
3. who is the competent authority in KVS which can give wiave off to salary deposition after resignation
4. please provide copy of rule regarding salary deposition waive off condition in KVS on resignation.”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:
“Query No. 1: Question/Queries/Reason/Explanation and Clarification are not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 .
However, PIO is not supposed to create or interpret the information.
Moreover, applicant is informed that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous body under Ministry of Education, the Government of India rules are applicable in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan mutatis mutandis in light of the Article.1 (xii) which states that: "Rules mean all rules enacted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan including Government of India Rules, which have been mutatis mutandis adopted by the Sangathan" of the Education Code of KVS.
Query No. 2 to 4: Question/Queries/Reason/Explanation and Clarification are not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 .
However, applicant is informed that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous body under Ministry of Education, the Government of India rules are applicable in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan mutatis mutandis in light of the Article.1 (xii) which states that: "Rules mean all rules enacted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan including Government of India Rules, which have been mutatis mutandis adopted by the Sangathan" of the Education Code of KVS.
Further, the applicant may refer Article 53 of Education Code of KVS.”
3. Dissatisfied with the non response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO on 28.02.2024.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.03.2024.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Deepak Kumar Dabral, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act and the Appellant has not stated any tenable grounds to challenge the reply of the CPIO or the FAA’s order.
8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
