Central Information Commission ***** No.CIC/OK/A/2007/00888 Dated: 16 February 2009 Name of the Complainant : Smt. Kalpana Badole, PGT (Maths), Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vayu Sena Nagar, Nagpur - 440 006. Name of the Public Authority : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan ORDER
Smt. Kalpana Badole of Nagpur filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, on 24 January
2007, asking question like the following:
“(i) Why didn’t get justice to me from KVS?
(ii) If KVS is unable to give me justice, why don’t they give me
permission to raise my matter before the Media and the Parliament for
(iii) Why did Principal pressurize me for taking VIII and IX class instead of
the Xth”; and so on.
2. The PIO vide his letter dated 14 February 2007 tried to reply. Not
satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first
Appellate Authority on 26 March 2007, and, thereafter, approached the Central
Information Commission with a second appeal on 18 June 2007.
3. In the absence of the Appellant, the Commission heard the Respondents
on 10 October 2007, who had denied the information asked for on the grounds
that most of the issues related to redressal of personal grievances rather than
demand for information. On perusal of the Appellant’s application, the
Commission accepted the Respondent’s submission and disposed of the Case.
However, the Appellant filed a Review Petition dated 27 November 2007, in
which she submitted that she had sent representations dated 09/01/2006,
24/07/2006, 06/05/2006, 30/08/2005, 01/12/2004, 20/11/2004 and
18/11/2004, to the Commissioner K.V.S. Headquarter, for rederessal of her
grievance. However, when no action was action by the Respondent on her
representations, she filed an RTI Application to know the action taken by the
Commissioner, K.V.S. (Hqrs.). In fact, the Appellant wanted information about
her representations submitted to the Respondents, in the form of
4. After examining the Review Petition of the Appellant, the Commission
finds no merit in the Review Petition. However, the Commission feels that the
Appellant could not draft her RTI Application in proper manner and the basic
purpose of the RTI Act 2005, i.e. transparency and accountability, should not
be frustrated due to lack of the drafting skills of the information seekers.
Hence, in the interest of transparency and accountability, the Commission
directs the Central Public Information Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan,
New Delhi, to open up all the files related to all her representations and
provide photocopies of the pages she asks for after receiving the fee prescribed
for the purpose of the RTI-Act. This may be done by 5 March 2009.
5. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Authenticated true copy:
1. Mrs. Kalpana Badole, P.G.T. (Maths), Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vayu Sena Nagar,
Nagpur – 440006 (M.S.)
2. Shri Kanhaiya Chaudhary, Asstt. Commissioner & Public Information Officer,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 – Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi – 110016
3. Smt. Pragya Richa Srivastava, Appellate Authority, Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Sangathan, 18 – Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi –
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC