Central Information Commission
R Vidyadhar vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 21 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/667585
R Vidyadhar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel & Training,
RTI Cell, North Block,
New Delhi-110001 . .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/09/2023
Date of Decision : 19/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 01/11/2022
First appeal filed on : 19/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 15/12/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"I, R. Vidyadhar (Roll No.1213916) secured rank 353 in CSE2021 under OBC category. My father is working in state PSU TANGEDCO. However, my name is not 1 listed in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd iteration (dated 04/08/2022, 26/08/2022 & 23/09/2022) of service allocation which is released by DoPT. This is despite me sending Equivalence Government order released by BC, MBC & BCC department of Tamil Nadu government (dated 16/8/2022) which establishes equivalence between posts of my father's state PSU TANGEDCO and that of state government, which is as required by Category IIC of OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT). I have sent the above GO through following means -
A. Physical submission of 1st representation letter on 17.08.2022 B. Email submission of 1st representation letter on 17.08.2022 C. Registered post of 1st representation letter (Tracking ID - RT319768685IN, Delivered - 22.08.2022) D. Email submission of 2nd representation letter on 30.08.2022. E. Registered post of 2nd representation letter (Tracking ID - RT304040595IN, Delivered - 03.09.2022) F. UPSCs request letter to DoPT to consider my representation (Dated - 09.09.2022, refer attachment) Thus, I seek following information related to above case -
1. Please provide information of status of the above representation letters which is received by DoPT.
2. Please provide information whether DoPT accepted or rejected the legitimate Government order (G.0. (Ms) No.68) passed by BC, MBC & BCC department of Tamil Nadu state government which establishes equivalence of posts of State PSU TANGEDCO/TNEB with that of state government.
3. Please provide information on why DoPT is taking more than 50 days (from 17.08.2022 to 06.10.2022) to process my representation letter which contains GO as required by Category II(C) of OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT).
4. Please provide information on why despite releasing 3 iterations and taking more than 60 days (from 1st iteration date 04.08.2022 to 06.10.2022), DoPT has not given any written reply to candidate who has duly cleared the Civil service exam 2021 for not being listed in any of the iterations of DoPT.2
5. Please provide information on how much more days will be needed by DoPT to process my representation letters and to provide written reply to me.
6. Please provide information on why despite sending required equivalence government order, my name was not included in 2nd and 3rd iteration of service allocation."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.11.2022 stating as under:
"With regard to point No. 1, it is informed that the representations mentioned in your RTI application have been received in this Department.
Regarding point No. 2-6, it is informed that queries raised by you are interrogatory in nature and seeking clarification from the CPIO is not covered under the term 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, it is informed that the Creamy/Non- Creamy Layer status of OBC candidates of Civil Services Examination (CSE) is determined as per provisions contained in DoP&T's O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.1993, as amended from time to time.
Further, it may kindly be noted that as per the RTI Act 2005, CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of OM, Notification, rules regulation, orders. letters and circulars etc. Queries/Clarification or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the RTI Act 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 15.12.2022, concurs with the reply of the CPIO, hence no further intervention required in the matter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-3
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Anshuman Mishra, US & CPIO present in person.
The Appellant argued on the lines of his written submissions stating as under:
"I have submitted representation letter (along with required GOs on 17/08/2022) to DoPT to consider my service allocation in CSE 2021. I have requested information on the decision made by the DOPT with respect to my candidature, post the document submission. I am requesting the Xerox copies of the noting in the file record which dealt with my service allocation in CSE 2021. However, the information sought through RTI was denied based on the fact that it is interrogatory in nature. Even though the information sought may be interrogatory in nature (as word "why" is used), the same should not be denied, because-
1. CIC in Nandlal B Pardeshi vs Mumbai Port Trust on 25 April, 2018 case that, "queries in the nature of "why"& "when", per se do not disentitle an applicant from seeking information under Section 2(1) of the RTI Act. In case there is any record available in regard to any question raised in an RTI application, the same needs to be provided under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2. Thus, if an official record (Noting/file/correspondence) is maintained by the public authority, then Interrogatory queries in the nature of "why" & "When" can be used while seeking information Since, I have given representation letter multiple times to DoPT (Annexure III), there should have been certain record or document which dealt with the receipt/document of my representation letters. Even details of these records where not furnished by the 1st appeal authority & the CPIO. Also, the information is not interpretation or clarification in nature, because the sough information (Qn.
3-5) is asking about asking the reasons for delay.
Also as per DoPT's own order OM No. 36011/1/12-Estt. (Res.) (http://ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/36011-1- 12 36637801755287582511.pdf], for verification of any community certificate, proper channels has to be followed by the appointing authority (in this case DoPT) to verify the claims. Thus, I am requesting for documents/Files which dealt for verifying my OBC Non creamy layer status through proper channels, which might involve communication with the state government."
4The CPIO reiterated the reply already provided to the Appellant and agreed to abide by the orders of the Commission, if any, in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that except for point no.1 of the RTI Application, none of the points qualify under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for answers and clarifications to speculative as well as futuristic queries.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public 5 authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not 6 done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of 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...." (Emphasis Supplied) Now, with reference to point no.1 of the RTI Application, the Commission observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is inadequate, irrelevant and rather evasive in as much as the Appellant never asked to confirm receipt of the representations but sought to know their status. In other words, the CPIO ought to have applied his mind to appreciate that the Appellant seeks to know the 7 status of action taken when the factum of receipt is already mentioned in the said point itself.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply to point no.1 of the instant RTI Application incorporating the available information regarding the status of action taken, if any on the averred representations. The said revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, subsequent to the receipt of the averred revised reply/available information from the CPIO, in case of any dissatisfaction with respect to action/inaction on the representations, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate grievance redressal forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8