Central Information Commission
T M Najmudeen vs Department Of Agricultural Research & ... on 20 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DOARE/A/2019/648160
In the matter of:
T M Najmudeen
... Appellant
VS
CPIO & CTO
Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board,
Department of Agricultural Research & Education
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-I, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/02/2019 CPIO replied on : 11/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 10/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 30/04/2019 Second Appeal dated : 14/08/2019 Date of Hearing : 19/10/2020 Date of Decision : 19/10/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri Suresh Pal, Chief Technical Officer and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided in respect of query no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI application, which are stated below:
1. Kindly clarify, whether ASRB has awarded marks for the papers accepted for publication during the assessment period.1
2. The marks/scores awarded under B01 Research papers in assessment performance/score card under the revised CAS for consideration for promotion from senior scientist grade to principal scientist grade, duly filled in and submitted by Dr. K.K. Philippose and Dr. K.K. Vinod, Senior Scientist, CMFRI, for the assessment interview held on 10- 10-2012 at ASRB, New Delhi in the discipline of FISH AND FISHERY SCIENCE
3. Extract of the assessment performance/score card submitted to ASRB by Dr. K.K. Philippose and Dr. K.K. Vinod under Sl. No. B01 Research Papers indicating the name, title and volume number of the research paper to claim score/marks under Sl. No B01 Research papers for the assessment interview held on 10-10-2012.
4. Name of the chairman of the Assessment committee for revised CAS held on 04-09-2012 in FISH AND FISHERY SCIENCE at ASRB, New Delhi.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the information on some of the points of the RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) and ( e) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted in respect of point no. 1 that he has requested information from the records of the assessment files of the public authority, ASRB through an RTI question as "whether ASRB has awarded marks for the papers accepted for publication during the assessment period under Sl.No. B01 Research Papers during career advancement assessment of any of the senior scientists from RGP 9000 to RGP 10000 principal scientists so far". He has not asked any hypothetical question or any interpretation based on the information which is not available with the public authority. Moreover, while disposing the case of Saidur Rehman Vs CIC, the Commission had stated that RTI is about the information available and existing. It must be either held by or under the control of the concerned public authority- one cannot demand what is not there on their record. He has asked about the information which is there in the records of the assessment files of the public authority, ASRB, and hence are not qualified to be exempted based on the decision in Saidur Rehman's case. He requested the Commission to provide the requested information. He pointed out that Saidur Rehman Vs CIC case is applicable only for questions asked which are not related to or available with the public authority 2 concerned.In respect of points no. 2 to 4 he made the same submissions as in case no. 648157 in which he was the appellant and which was also heard today.
In his second appeal he had submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply and stated that the scientists assessed for promotion by ASRB are government servants whose salary and allowances are paid from Government/public fund and the promotion of scientists from a lower grade pay to higher grade pay involves liability to the national exchequer. He further contended that he had not asked a hypothetical question in point no. 1 ,rather, based on the records of the ASRB assessment file the answer should be given.
Observations:
The reply and the observations for points no. 2,3 and 4 remains the same as in case no. 648157 which was heard and decided today. As far as point no. 1 is concerned, the information sought is not covered within the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is not 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 authority. The applicant cannot expect the CPIO to give clarification to his queries only because the subject matter was dealt with by the public authority.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for any further intervention in this matter. The reply provided was justified and hence no action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) 3 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4