Central Information Commission
Manoj Kumar Srivastava vs Union Public Service Commission on 7 October, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/180135/MP
Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Indore
Public Authority : Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : September 18, 2017
Date of Decision : October 5, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri Mrityunjay Jha, US - at CIC
RTI application : 27.07.2016
CPIO's reply : 26.08.2016
First appeal : 05.09.2016
FAA's order : 06.10.2016
Second appeal : 15.10.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, the appellant, while stating that Article 320 of the Indian Constitution does not give any right to the UPSC to make a rule or statute, the provision under which guidelines for categorization of officers for promotion to Indian Police Service had been framed by the UPSC; the legal sanctity of those guidelines and whether these guidelines can supersede the rules and circulars of Government of India and the DoPT; whether the guidelines framed by the UPSC were approved by the DoPT along with the copy of promotion regulations 5(4) and 5(5) and how these guidelines authorise the UPSC to frame rules.
2. The CPIO informed the appellant that what was sought by the appellant could not be termed as information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that what he had requested was a statement of legal provisions which would come in the category of record. The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission discussing in details the response given by the CPIO and added that the denial of required information by the appellate authority shows that the CPIO had failed to appreciate the nature of information sought and denied it in a mechanical manner.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him.
4. The respondent stated that as per the RTI Act, 2005, the duty of the CPIO was to provide the information that was available in material form. Further, DoPT vide their OM dated 10.7.2008, had clarified that the Act does not require the PIO to deduce some conclusion from the material and supply the conclusion as deduced to the applicant. The PIO is required to supply the material in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to him. The Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Thimmaiah & Other vs UPSC had observed the legal sanctity of the guidelines of the UPSC. The FAA, in fact, had quoted the relevant portion in his order. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
5. The Commission observes that the respondent authority can only provide the information that is existing and available with them and is not supposed to create information or to deduce conclusions from the available material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 has 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and
(j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant....."
6. In view of the above, the Commission accepts the submissions of the respondent authority and upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Union Public Service Commission Union Public Service Commission AIS Division, Dholpur House AIS Division, Dholpur House Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava SP, AJK, Indore (MP)