SUKHRANI v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

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.

Page 2 of 3

2 / 4

2

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. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )

िदनांक/Date: 30.06.2025

Authenticated true copy

O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल)

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514

Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Head Quarters, 18,

Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi -

110016

2 Sukhrani Page 3 of 3 3 / 4

3

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 41 / 14

4