Central Information Commission
Sinthoi Salam vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 27 July, 2022
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/2021/646022
Sinthoi Salam ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel &
Training, Estt. R-I Section,
RTI Cell, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/07/2022
Date of Decision : 26/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 06/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 15/08/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 02/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"I seek the detailed information of the OBC Non-Creamy Layer in recruitment of Government Employment. As a Meitei community of Manipur we belong OBC. My father is a farmer My mother joined in a government aided college in Manipur as Lecturer in 1997 Around the end of 2019 the government of Manipur approved the college as a regular government college. Before approval as a regular government college my mother used to get a meagre salary of 5000 rupees approximate per month. The age of my mother at the time of approval was 47 years. Now she is 49 years old and worked as an Assistant Professor in the college 1 Now She gets regular salary and allowances provided by Government of Manipur:-
1. Will it be called a direct recruitment as an Assistant Professor in my mother s case
2. Are we the children belong to OBC Non Creamy Layer."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.08.2021 stating as follows:-
"You may see OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.1993 and OM No. 36033/1/2013-Estt. (Res.) dated 13.09.2017 at dopt.gov.in- Notifications-OMs & Orders-Estt. (Reservation)-SC/ST/OBC.
As per the Right to Information Act, 2005, CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., Notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries or clarification or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to give clarification."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.08.2021. FAA's order dated 02.09.2021 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: Not present.
Respondent: Abhay Kumar, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the relevant rules which the Appellant could refer to was indicated in their reply.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include 2 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. In this regard, his 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 washeld 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) With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपु सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3