Central Information Commission
Bani Baral vs All India Council For Technical ... on 4 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/AICTE/A/2017/602524-BJ
Dr. Bani Baral,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110067
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2018
Date of Decision : 04.10.2018
Date of RTI application 12.04.2017
CPIO's response 25.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 27.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 08.05.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 06 points (contents taken from Second Appeal) regarding whether the AICTE in its notification dated 20.09.1989, notified the position of Lecturer (Selection Grade) and the Head of the Department of the Polytechnics at par in terms of pay scale and qualification, whether in the notification of 1989, PhD (Engineering) was equated with PhD Science/ Humanities with post doctoral experience and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.04.2017 while referring to the DoPT OM dated 16.09.2011 stated that the information sought was available on the website of AICTE and that the CPIO was not supposed to generate the information. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.05.2017 disposed off the Appeal giving certain clarifications in respect of its notifications issued from time to time.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent Mrs. Ruchika Kem, Asst. Director/CPIO, AICTE and Mr. Ajeet Singh, Assistant Director;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent conveyed that the CPIO / FAA had replied in the matter. The Appellant was seeking certain clarifications in respect of the notifications issued by the AICTE from time to time. In its written submission dated 01.10.2018, further clarifications were made by the Respondent.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 22.09.2018 wherein it was stated that he did not agree with the reply of the CPIO and FAA. While denying the information, the PIO, AICTE did not quote the DoPT reference number and the contents correctly and that the Supreme Court order stated that the Public Authority was not bound to give information that it did not possess. In his case, the AICTE did have information. While referring to para no. 01, 02 and 03 of his application, it was stated that the same pertained to Education notifications of 1989 and 1999 and serial number 05, 06 and 07 pertained to AICTE notification of 2010. Furthermore, except the notification dated 02.09.1989, all the subsequent notifications felt scones of adjustment and interpretation. After 1999, notification of 4-5 pages and clarification had to be issued in 2003. After 2010 notification, AICTE issued 02 other notifications/ clarifications in 2012 and 2016. In the 2012 notification for Pay Band 4, PhD degree was made mandatory for lecturer (Selection Grade) without mentioning any corresponding changes in the notified qualification of the Head of the Department. Moreover, the AICTE notification of 1989 was not available on the UGC website.
In its written submission dated 01.10.2018, the Respondent while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA provided a copy of the AICTE Gazette Notifications dated 28.02.1989, 30.12.1999, 04.01.2016, 05.03.2010 and 10.09.2003.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
Page 2 of 4"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.
Page 3 of 4DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission directs the Respondent to ensure that its written submission alongwith a set of enclosures is furnished to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 04.10.2018
Page 4 of 4