Central Information Commission
Anandjeet Kumar Verma vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 24 July, 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/2022/666121
Anandjeet Kumar Verma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel &
Training, RTI Cell, North
Block, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/07/2023
Date of Decision : 20/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 24/09/2022
First appeal filed on : 09/10/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 28/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/12/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.09.2022 seeking the following information related to departmental promotional examination of central government i.e. railways, post, income tax:-
1. Is there any provision to provide MODEL ANSWER KEY WITH SCRIPT, (which is used for evaluation) to candidate in a departmental promotional examination?
2. If yes/no, kindly provide details/rules for the same.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 24.09.2022 stating as under:
"It is informed that no material information specific to your queries is available with the CPIO. Under the RTI Act, only such information can be supplied which already exist and is held by the Public Authority or held under control of the Public Authority. The PIO is not supposed to create information, or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raise by the applicants. Your application has further been transferred to CPIO, UPSC for providing available information, if any, directly to you".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.10.2022. FAA's order date 28.11.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: R K Sinha, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
The Appellant argued that the CPIO/UPSC had replied on 30.09.2022 stating that the 'information sought in the petition is available in the website of the commission and may be seen from there. For specific reply, NAME and YEAR of EXAMINATION may be mentioned'. He further stated that he had filed the instant RTI Application 2 for 'provision of providing Model Answer Key with Script to the candidate for departmental promotional examination in Railway, Post, Income tax etc, which is uncompleted till date. The CPIO/UPSC has stated that information is available in website. UPSC is not related to any department but, conducted exam for fresh recruitment.' Therefore, he seeks to know if the reply by the CPIO/UPSC applies to all departmental promotional exams?
The CPIO explained that no model answer key is maintained for departmental promotional examination by DoPT and as for the contention that the Appellant is seeking model answer key, the RTI Application under reference does not seek any such information but seeks to know if there is any provision to provide model answer key to candidates taking the departmental promotional examination.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and after considering the submission of the parties observes that as far as the clarification sought for in the instant RTI Application is concerned, the reply of the CPIO dated 24.09.2022 suffices. Pertinently so, the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and at this stage, he is agitating against the reply of UPSC, while arguing that he asked for the copy of model answer key in the instant RTI Application, which is an incorrect statement. The Appellant has neither sought for any copy of model answer key nor has he filed the instant appeal against UPSC or exhausted the channel of First Appeal against the reply of UPSC dated 30.09.2022, therefore, the Commission is not in a position to entertain either of the contentions as mentioned earlier.
Adverting to the specific contents of the RTI Application under reference, 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, 3 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 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) Having observed as above, no action lies against the CPIO, DoPT. As for the contentions against UPSC for not providing the averred answer key, the Commission finds the same to be not maintainable in the instant matter.
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 / 4