CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00390/1514
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00390
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Anagha A Thombare,
1/13 Sahajanand Kothrud,
Pune - 411038.
Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Chaudhary,
Asst. Commissioner & CPIO,
Administration & Finance,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi – 110602.
RTI application filed on : 11/02/2008 Reply from PIO : 06/10/2008 First Appeal filed on : 11/10/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 05/12/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 26/12/2008 Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an application related to as mentioned under:
The copy of the CAT Banglore branch orders against application no 139/2005 in respect of
Smt. A Sheshadri. The advocate of the applicant had stated that during the CAT proceedings
that KVS HQ had already taken a decision to delete Rules 81 D from the code and the approval
is pending before the Govt. (ref item no 4 page 3). The information required:
1. The copy of the proposal submitted by KVS HQ. To the Govt. to delete 81 D from the
code.
2. The copy of the approval of the same if any-
PIO’s Reply:
The PIO replied that “No such proposal for deletion of Article 81 D from the Education Code
or the approval of Govt. is available in Vigilance Section.”
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
After examining the submission of the Appellant in her appeal, has observed that the
information furnished to the Appellant was apt and proper as there was no such submission
before the Hon’ble Tribunal on behalf of KVS Board had already taken a decision to delete the
Article 81 D from the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyayalayas.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. S. Shrivastav APIO
The respondent states that the appellant is asking about a proposal which does not exist.
The respondent has communicated this to the appellant, yet the appellant continues to
appeal. The respondent also states that the statement made by Adv. Kurup on behalf of
KVS about the proposal was wrong and this has been confirmed by the First appellate
authority. The contentions of the respondent appear to be correct.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 05, 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)